2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Magoris Variance request March 15, 2000 Page 2 Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes reyuire that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship e�sts when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is a corner lot and is an odd shape. This can make it more difficult to meet setback requirements. This is not a special circumstance in that there are numerous similar lots in the community. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights comrrronly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of thrs Ti2le. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. The applicant currently has a two-stall garage which is typical in the community. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no special circumstances. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would confer special privileges that other corner lot owners would not have. e. That the variance requested is the minzmum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. As the applicants have shown in the site plan, the e�sting setback is right at the minimum required setback. Any expansion would result in the variance being required.