HomeMy WebLinkAboutPract DiffPRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
LA22-000068
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Chapter.
Response: The contractor wishes to keep the as built retaining wall improvements in place which are
residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope of protecting the bluff and the lake.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
Response: The contractor has installed retaining wall improvements to protect against failure of the
slope. The damage to the pre existing structures and resulting loss of bluff retention/protection was
not created by the landowner
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Response: There were pre existing retaining walls and other structures on the slope. The variance to
permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the 75-foot lake setback is necessary to maintain
the integrity of the existing slope.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.
Response: Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Response: This criteria is not applicable.
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any
use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located.
Response: This criteria is not applicable.
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
Response: This criteria is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.
Response: The as-built retaining walls, steep bluff, pre as-built structures and the fire which
destroyed them are uniquely specific to the property.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
said land is located.
Response: The existing as-built retaining walls and steep bluff are unique conditions affecting this
property and do not apply to land or structures in the district in which the land is located.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Response: Granting a variance to allow the retaining wall expanded footprint within the 75-foot lake
setback is reasonable and is a better solution long-term to provide stabilization to the bluff, and is also
necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on
the Property.
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: Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the as built retaining walls to remain as-
is within the 75-foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any
way be contrary to the ordinances.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.
Response: To grant the variance will not merely serve a convenience tool to the contractor and/or
landowner, but will continue to preserve the integrity of the bluff. By granting the variance for the as
built walls to remain in place is necessary for the protection of the land and the lake.