02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

of the Subject Property, together with the'topography ranging from two (2) to four (4) feet creates an. undue hardship. The Applicant also indicates an alternative well location on the site plan. It is important to note that not the entire area indicated would be required, based on required setbacks. Staff agrees that the existing vegetation provides screening to the accessory structure. This does help address part of the intent of the. ordinance, which is to focus attention to the primary dwelling rather than a detached accessory structure. Staff does note, however, that visibility, is increased in the winter months 'in 'leaf-off conditions or removal of trees. The Board could consider requiring that the Structure remain adequately screened as a reasonable condition 'of the approval. That would el,lsure that in the event ofloss of the vegetation, the Applicant, and all future owners of the Subject Property, 'would be required to maintain adequate, vegetative screening; ,. Per discussion at the December meetillg, Staff has further researched the use of trees as an Undue hardship. and - has, attached a memo from the League for your review. Itappears that based on the League's interpretation, the City could consider existing trees as an undue hardship, so long as the request met Minnesota Statute and the City's ordinance. The Board will need to take action at the February meeting per the approved extension. '. , ~ Recommendation: ' , , , Before Staff can make a recommendation of approval or denial, Staff needs direction as to what the :Board would consider an lindue hardship. The Board-should consider whether the topography and lot configuration is unique to the Subject Property and creates an undue hardship based on the infonilation , provided by the Applicant. ' In addition, there was significant discussion at the December meeting regards to the removal of trees creating an undue hardship. Based on research, provided to the League of Minn~sota Cities, the City would 'be within its right to consider trees as an undue hardship, subject to the City's ordinance. Ramsey City. Code does not, sp~cifically call out trees as creating an undue hardship. Similar to discussion at the previous meeting, the Board needs to consider whether the number of trees compared , to the total number of trees on the Subject Property creates an lindue hardship. Any potential undue hardship would the above factors in concert, and not individually. ' Should the Board choose to approve the Variance, Staff recommends requiring screening to the level , that currently exists as a reasonably condition of approval. This would ensure that in the event of loss of vegetative screening, the Applicant, and all future owners, would be require to replace the screening in order to continue work towards the intent of the ordjnance to reduce visibility of a detached accessory structure ill. the front yard. , . When reviewing Variance requests, the Board should be considering the following, points, -per State Statute: . Can the Subject Property be put to a particular reasonable use without a Variance? ' ' . Is the plight due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property not created by the Property Owner? . Will the V arianee, if granteq, alter t1}.e locality's essential character? . Economic circumstances alone cannot create uridue hardship. 2