2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Pinewaod March 7, 2001 Page 3 Vas°�ance Discussaon: As indicaied above, the parking lot along Quincy 5treet already encroaches onto City right of way. The plans are to expand this parking area to the south using the same setback line. To allow this, a variance wilt need to be approved as well as approval of a limited use agreement of some kind ta formalize the arrangement. For the Planning Commission io aci �avorably, there must he a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literai interpretation of the Code overly burdenso�ze or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that tl�e governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criieria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when aZl of the criteria are met. The individuai criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extrccordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result fronl lot size or shape, topography or other circunastances oveY which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no contr�ol. The parking Iot alongside Quincy �treet has existed in this £asluon for many years. The drive aisle and parking cannot be made to conforrn. to the code-required setback withouY '''� substantial reconstruction which would be prohibitively difficult. b. The lrte�al inteYpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While the liierai interpretatzon would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other propezties within ihe disirict, the strict interpretation oithe Code could cause the loss of 27 parlring spaces at a facility already experiencing a parl�ing shortage. c. That the special conditions or ciNCUmsiances do not result, fYOm the acizons of the applicant. Staff was unable to determine if any agreements were filed with regard to the current arrangement. It is possible that the school district had received some Ievel of approval from tkae City in order to construct the parl�ing lat where it exists now. Ta that end, the special conditions could resuli by the City's previous approval. d. That g�anting the variance �equested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to otivneYS of other lcrnds, st�uctut�es or buildings in the same dzstrict. This use is unique for the district in which it is locat�d in that it is a school wiihin a single- family residential distric�. The school is inherently different from a house in many ways and thus tlze variance, if granted, could not be construed as a special privilege.