Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988

Home Browse Search

.ti to situations where height and location of structures, lot size or other factors not involved in the use of the premises, prevents strict conformance with the requirements of the zoning chapter. Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on 1 granting of a variance under section 10.08." Several arguments can be made by utilizing the language of this subdivision and its subsections. One is the existing structure would have been maintained if razing the building would result in a non -buildable lot. A more direct argument can be made from subsection i, in that significant alterations could have been made to the building, provided they did not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building, thus making the existing structure more adequately maintained to insure its permanence. The general premise of either argument is that had it been known that no rebuilding would be permitted, the original building would not have been destroyed. Section 10.09, subdivision 10, of the code, regarding conditional use permits for non -conforming uses, states "all non- conforming uses actually and legally existing on December 1, 1974, shall be issued a conditional use permit upon application therefor not later than January 1, 1976. Such conditional use permit shall allow the continuation of the non -conforming use of the same extent and degree as then existing on December 1, 1974. Such permit shall be granted without application fee and the council shall be limited to such permits to the full and accurate statements of the conditions pertaining to the existing uses. Such permit shall not be subject to periodic review." The key argument under this subdivision relies )n the fact that no notice regarding applying for the conditional use permit was given. Absent such notice, a violation of due process rights occurs since the City would have been required by statute tc issue you a conditional usn permit upon proper application. The strongest argument in favor of granting a variance for Lot 19 is in regard to the separate sewer and water hook-up for which an assessment was paid. The City itself economically benefited by requiring payment of this special assessment. By forcing payment of an assessment, it can be argued that the City had recognized Lot 19 as a .separate and self-sufficient lot, which must receive a variance as a non -conforming use. Section 10.0A, subdivision 3, of the code, states that one of the powers of the board of appeals and adjustments is to "hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the zoning chapter in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the