Laserfiche WebLink
12/21/23, 2:58 PM Permit List | Citizenserve <br />https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=88061929&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/2 <br />PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM <br />LA23-000068 <br />1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. <br />Response: The owner is proposing to use the property in the same manner as it exists today with a single-family home in the same <br />general vicinity as it currently exists on the site. The straight line setback delineation prohibits this, as the current structure is non- <br />conforming. <br />2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. <br />Response: The intention of the straight line setback, from our perspective, is to maintain a common/shared setback from the shoreline <br />on lake lots between neighboring parcels and avoid view corridor infractions. The plight of the landowner for a corner / peninsula lot is a <br />straight line setback that bisects their property. This is a unique condition which applies to a small number of properties on Lake <br />Minnetonka, specific to a severe curve or shift in the natural shoreline of the lake. <br />3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />Response: The variance would allow a new single family home in the same vicinity of what already exists on the site and not alter the <br />use or character of the property. <br />4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under <br />the terms of the Zoning Chapter. <br />Response: Economic considerations are not being introduced as a practical difficulty in this condition. <br />5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br />Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, <br />when in harmony with this Chapter. <br />Response: We do not believe this item is applicable for our request. <br />6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under <br />this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. <br />Response: The proposed structure would meet the zoning requirements for the LR-1A district, in regard to setbacks, coverage, and <br />height in every aspect per Sec. 78-305. <br />7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br />Response: We do not believe this item is applicable for our request. <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately <br />adjoining property. <br />Response: The straight line setback requirement is intended for neighboring parcels that share a generally continuous shoreline. In the <br />instance of this property, the shoreline shifts drastically between Stubbs Bay and Maxwel Bay and creates a neighboring parcel to the <br />direct north, and one to the direct east. We believe that condition is not in line with the intention of the zoning requirement. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. <br />Response: While there may be other lots with similar conditions in regards to bisecting a lot, this instance and property provides a <br />severe scenario where the straight line setback creates a buildable area close to 1.5% of the overall property size (5,430 buildable <br />square feet on a 320,589 square foot lot) <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the <br />applicant. <br />Response: The variance would allow the owner to use the property in the same manner as it is currently being used. <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other <br />respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. <br />Response: The variance would allow the owner to use the property in the same manner as it is currently being used. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate <br />demonstrable difficulty. <br />168