09/02/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

subject to appeals to the City Council. When reviewing Variance requests, the Board should be considering the following points; per Minnesota Statute 462.357: • 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 Variance, if granted, alter the locality's essential character? • Economic circumstances alone cannot create undue hardship. Recommendation: City Staff agrees that it appears that there is an undue hardship in locating the structure in the rear yard, completely behind the rear wall of the principal structure due to existing topography and private septic system location. The Board of Adjustment must decide if access to the existing `Structure A' (see findings of fact) is restricted enough in order to be considered an undue hardship in locating the proposed structure even with or behind the front of the principal structure. Regardless, City Staff recommends that any approval be based on Items #21-23 of the Findings of Fact and not all factors as listed by the Applicant (namely the removal of the existing garden). Board Action: �,Iefien te adopt the ReselutieR to ndept the Findings ef Faet related to the r at 16151 ^Ali,ine.N*'-• (passed) and Motion to adopt the Resolution to approve the request for a variance to construct an accessory building nearer the front property line than the principal structure at 16151 Olivine NW, based on the findings of fact. -or- Motion to deny the request for a variance at 16151 Olivine NW, based on the findings of fact. Reviewed by: Planning Manager BOA: 09.02.2010 Attachments: a) Site location map b) Site Plan consisting of two (2) sheets c) Request from Applicant d) Contour Map e) Proposed Findings of Fact f) Proposed Variance Copies to: City Attorney