CC PACKET 01082008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

45 6. There were concerns voiced by neighbors to both staff about whether this variance allowed the applicant to acquire additional property from adjacent properties to make up the deficit. Concerns about asbestos were also voiced at the public hearing. The property owner responded that he had an inspection done prior to purchasing the property and it was determined that there was no asbestos used in the original construction of the structure. 7. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant presented sufficient evidence to meet the following criteria for the granting of a variance: The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. As stated above, Section 1605.05, Subd. 2 states in part that no dwelling may be constructed or placed on an interior lot of less than 9,000 square feet, or less than 75 feet in width at the building setback line. Because the property at 3112- 32nd Avenue is less than 75 feet in width at the building setback line, Mr. Schommer would not be permitted to reconstruct his residence to a modern, code -current structure. Despite the narrow width, the applicant presented evidence that the lot has sufficient square footage to allow for the construction of a residential structure that could meet the current building codes, improve the property values and continue the City's goal of keeping housing stock that is safe and livable. Further, the City Attorney advised that since the applicant proposes to reconstruct the residential structure to a larger building footprint than the original, thereby increasing or enhancing the nonconforming use, the applicant should apply for a variance. The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the owner. The current house was built in 1928, several years before the Zoning Code was adopted and the lot was platted at a time when lot sizes were not regulated. As stated previously, the City adopted its Zoning Code in 1976 whereby minimum lot sizes for all zoning districts, including residential, were adopted. Therefore, proof is provided that the current owner did not create the circumstances that are causing the hardship that prevents him from rebuilding a residential structure. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characteristics of the locality. The zoning is R-1 and the structure proposed to be rebuilt is a single family dwelling of 1,562SF to replace the smaller, original home. There were other similar situations in this part of the community and several property owners have obtained variances to their lot widths. Building up-to-date homes keeps the neighborhood viable and the properties well -kept and attractive. The area has over the years, changed over from the smaller, pre -WWII homes to more modern and code compliant structures. By proposing to rebuild a residential structure, the owner has proved that his proposal will be more in keeping with the essential characteristics of the area. F:\Planning\Findings of Fact\2008\01082008 Findings of Fact 3112 32nd Avenue Schommer.doc