07-16-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� (. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impaix health, safety, comfort,morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." RESPONSE: The landowner is extremely aware of the importance of zoning ordinances and the role of the City in maintauung an orderly process for the benefit of all the residents. The landowner has no agenda or intent to be a maverick in the community or establish any precedent for other landowners. It is the landowner's position that he was an unintended victim of circumstances, not someone who is attempting, in any manner, to subvert the existing applicable ordinances and codes. It is the landowner's belief that the project is not only aesthetically pleasing for the residents of the area,but that it is entirely environmentally safe. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." RESPONSE: See previous Responses. •. _ Practical Difficulties Statement • . Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines: While the Applicant's position is stated herein, and will not be repeated there is another observation which the landowner is requesting that all parties involved take into consideration: This project went from a dream and a vision to a ni�htmare. Clearlv there are times in evervone's life when the�put their trust in someone thev believe to be reputable, and that is what happened here Unfortunatelv as all Cit�personnel are aware this was not a situation where the landowner could make immediate remedial steps On the surface due to the dates of the ori�inal application and time frame involved one could easil�draw the conclusion that efforts were not • bein� made to "fix" the problem The realitv however is that the Applicant for obvious economic reasons had ho�ed to have the apparently at-fault partv remedv the problem, at his cost so that the Anplicant would not have to incur out-of-pocket expense on top of havin� his project dismantled in part It took time to try and determine exactly what hanpened here. With the limited Minnesota. landscapin� season it was extremelv difficult for the landowner to find another contractor who was willin� to apparentl�un-do someone else's work, and it is also a major economic expense that was not anticipated creatin� additional concerns as to essentiallv pavin�Ltwice far the same�roiect With res�ect to the Ci �'s personnel involved, the Applicant represents tha.t he was makin�pro�ress toward a resolution and there obviouslv was a chan�e in • personnel These are not intended to be excuses but rather explanations for what on the surface would appear to be a substantial or even intentional delay tactic. Nothin�Lcould be further from the truth From the time the Applicant realized there was a problem he has attempted to fi�ure out within�ractical means and his resources a way to fix the problem. Lastiv, and most � importantiv the ultimate�uestion as to whether this situation could have been avoided has been addressed herein with respect to the denial nota.tion It is absolutelv clear that work was done bv the contractor after the purported date of the denial What should also be clear, however, is that 3 �ECEIIO�D JUN 0 6 2012 CIS�OF �RnNC')