2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

1 � __'_�-�! _ �_�'__ -�� . r::`� ----� =- - f�--_•- '��:�� _ �_��.:�____�:�__._�i _ �_�_..�_---_•-�-- l ., Brunes Va�-iance April 5, 2000 Page2of5 Analysis: At the meeting on April 5, 2000, it was suggested that perhaps instead of a variance, the request could be allowed as an interim use. (Recently adopted Ordinance 657 allows for the granting of interim uses.) Staff consulted with the City Attorney, who advised that in order to approve the request as an interim use, the City would need to adopt an accompanying ordinance to specifically allow for tall fences as an interim use. Given the amount of time required for such an action, the interim use alternative would not serve as an expedient solution to the applicants' situation. Staff would suggest that in the meantime, other remediatory actions be considered by the applicants. Staff has discussed this situation with Chief of Police Bill Clark, who recommends that some type of neighbor mediation or dispute resolution may be the best alternative to address this issue. The applicants have been advised of this alternative and of Chief Clark's willingness to help moderate such a meeting. Hardshtp Criteria: State statutes require that the governing body review a set of prespecified criteria for each application and that it make its decision in accordance with those criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extr�aordrnary 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 circunzstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof�have had no control. There are no extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights co�nmonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. That the special conditions of• circuntstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants are clearly not responsible for the conditions which have prompted them to apply for a variance. d. That granting ihe variance requestea' 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.