1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

I . Lean Variance �lanning Case No. 553-99 May 19, 1999 Page 2 Ana�ysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Com�nission to act favorably, there must be a demons#rated hardship or practical di�culty associated with the praperty which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overiy burdensome or even restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criterza for each appiication and inake its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, The Code elearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraaYdinary czYCUmstances apply to the property lvhich do not apply generally to othe� prope�ties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or �hape, topography or other circumstances over tivhich the owners of the property sinc� the effective date hereof have had no contYOl. �taffcould not discern any exceptionai circumstances applicable to this property. b. The literal inte�prePaPion of the p�ovisions of this Title would dep�ive the applrcani of rights comnaonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the ternzs of this Title. ;'3 While the literai interpretation of the Code wauld not prohibit the property owners from building a porch, because of the sethack requirement, the porch could only be seven feet deep. c. That the special conditions or circumstcrnces do not �esult fi�am the actions of the applicant. The variance request is the result of the applicants' desire to construct a three season porch. d. That granting the variance r�equested will not eonfer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by thrs Tztle to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. While three-season porches and other like living space additions are allowed 'zn this district and are a desirable property irr�provetneni, not every property has room to accommodate such an expansion, especiatty in a side yard. e, That the varrance requested rs the minimum variance which would alleviate the haYdship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considere�' cz hardship. The property ovvners �wish to replace an ea�isting deck with the porch. Iithe porch were to ? be constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only 6e seven feet deep--not " enough room for a table and chairs.