1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

; 'r- ;:_ ; ;; ; , , ,. ;: , , ,: :' . �: - - _ ...:' : ;_ �:: < < _.. _. .__... ,. -_ -- , „ .,.: � Gates Variance Plannin� Case No. 545-98 January b, 1999 Page 2 The appEicant then approached the City Cauncil on October 12, 1998 in an effort to resolve the situation by means of a special use permit or a"grandfathering" action. Mr. Gates related that the truck has been there for years and his home is the only place to canveniently park the vehicle, Tn response, the Council explained that this particular ordinance was put to a vote of the community and the comrnunity decided that commercial vehicles were not appropriate in residential districts. Staff is duty-bound, the Council added, to enforce the Codes of the City to the best of its ability. As a result of this exchange, Mr. Gates resolved to alter his bui[ding plans to be able to park his vehicle inside. Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria establisiied in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2�f the City Code, which relate to hardships. Specifically, a variance may orrly be granted in thase cases where t�e Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as foilows: a, Exceptional or extraordirrary circumstances apply to the pYOperry which does not apply geriercrlly to other pi•opef�ties rfr the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circtrnrstances over tivhich the owner�s of the property since the ef'fective date hereof have had �ao cor�trol. The appEicant has been instructed by the City to either park his work vehicle in his garage or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a Code requirement that restricts commercial vehic�es from being parEced outside on a residential district. To accommodate the truck, the building plans for the under-construction garage were revised, going from a ten-foot door to an eleven-foot daor. The additional foot puts the height of the garaQe at 16 feet instead of ehe or�ginally-proposed 15 feet. b. The literal rt�teYpretatio�7 of the pj•ovrsior�s of thrs Title tivozrld deprrve the applicant of rights commvf�ly enjoyec� by olher propertres rtt the same distrrct ��nder the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the [anguage regarding accessory buiiding height, if upheld, would require the applicant to demolish the work already cfone on the gara�e expansion (i.e., remove footings, fou�dation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the �arage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is measured from the exteriar grade, not the interior floor elevation.