Laserfiche WebLink
M4-J0S4 <br />Ortebtr 11.2004 <br />rage 4 or 4 <br />Hardship Aoalyftb__________________________________________________ <br />In cnnsUtrtng •ppUcttiontfor vnrtnnee, Ae Ptannlng Commiuion sMt conskkr the effect of the <br />pnpoiei vnrimce upon the henlth, utfety and welfare of the community, extiting and anticipated <br />tn^ condMomt, Ught and air, danger of fire, risk to the public lafety, and the effect on values of <br />property in the surrounding area. The Planning Coumission shail consider recommending approtal <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict <br />ettforcement would cause undue hardship beeauu of circumstances unlgue to the Individual <br />property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when H Is demonstrated that such <br />actions win he In keeping with the spirit and brtent of the €hono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that a hardship inherent to the land exists in order to grant a lot width variance. <br />The tots (prior to combination) were only SS feet in width and a house existed on one. <br />Now that they are combined the lot width is much more conforming at 110 feet. In fact, <br />lot widths on Forest Lake Landing range from 50 feet, 60 feet, 75 feet, 80 feet, 90 feet, <br />and 95 feet where 110 feet would be the most conforming on the street Staff finds that <br />because a bouse existed in the past, the lots were legally formed, and the lot w idih would <br />not be inconsistent with the area, the City has an obligation to support a lot width <br />variance request when all other Zoning Ordiiumce requirements can be met. <br />Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land to support approval of a variance <br />for an accessory structure. Acknowledging that the building has been there absent a <br />principal structure, the property must still come into full compliance during the <br />rebuilding process. From staffs perspective, if a lot lends itself for construction of an <br />accessory building in a conforming location, one should be permitted. If the lot exists <br />where an accessory building can't fit in a conforming location, then it shouldn’t be <br />permitted as there are never hardships to allow construction of buildings not considered <br />necessities. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1 . Are there any negative impacts relating to the lot's width, which could be minimized? <br />2. Are there any hardships to approve the accessory building variance? <br />3. Should the fact that the accessory building existed tor some 20 years in this location <br />without a principal structure, gi\e weight to approval of the variance? Is this a <br />hardship? <br />4. Are then any other issues or concerns with th*s application? <br />Staff Rceomnaendation <br />Approval of the lot width variance as the property is a legal record lot where construction <br />of a residence isn’t prohibited when all other Zoning Ordinance standards have been met, <br />subject to City Engineer approval of a grading plan prior to City Council approval. <br />Denial of the variance to allow the existing accessory building to remain in a location <br />closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed residence as no valid hardship to the <br />land has been demonstrated.