06-18-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair 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 mainta.ining 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 environmenta.11y 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. �w�v 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 statec� herein, and will not be repeated, there is another observation which the landowner is requestin� 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 they_put their trust in someone they believe to be reputable, and that is what hap�ened here Unforiunately 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 i�nal apnlication and time frame involved one could easily 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 hoped to have the�parently at-fault p remedv the problem at his cost, so that the Applicant 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 happened here. With the limited Minnesota landscapin� season it was exlremelv difficult for the landowner to find another contractor who was willin�to a�parentiv un-do someone else's work, and it is also a major economic expense that was not anticipated creatin� additional concerns as to essentiallv pa�in� twice for the same project With re�ect to the Cit�s�ersonnel involved the Applicant represents tha.t he was makin�pro�ress toward a resolution, and there obviously 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 delav ta.ctic. Nothin� could be further from the truth From the time the Applicant realized there was a problem, he has attempted to fi�ure out within practical means and his resources a wav to fix the problem. Lastiv, and most importantiv the ultimate question as to whether this situation could have been avoided has been addressed herein with respect to the denial notation. 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 i�ECEIVED � JUN 0 6 2012 �°e-rv n� nRnrvn