2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Meinert Report May 17, 2000 Page 2 There is zzo record of a variance ever being granted. The garage probably predates the setbacic requirement and therefore is a lawful non-conforming structure. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Plamzing Commission to act favorably, there inust be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal inteipretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and malce 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 exists when all of tl�e criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or ext��aordinaiy circu»�stayzces apply to the prope��t�� wliich do Tiot apply gerzeYally to otlzer p��operties i�z the same zone o�� vici�zity and result fr�o�i lot size of� shape, topogs•aplzy o�° other ciYCU»ZSta�aces ove�� which the o�vnei•s of the p��opeYty siizce tlae effective date lae��eof have had no control. The property is an odd shaped interior lot. The front of the lot is wider than the rear of the lot. This can make it more difficult to meet setbacic requirements. This is not a special circumstance, in this case, in that there are numerous similar lots in the community and because the garage and house are constructed perpendicular to the side lot line in question. b. Tlae lite��al inteipf°etation of the p�°ovisions of this Title would depf°ive the applicant of f•ights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the sa�ne district unde�° the te�°f�as of this Title. The applicant currently only has a one-and-a-half-stall garage which is not typical. There are, however, alternatives to construct a smaller two-car garage or to expand the existing garage with less of a variance. A larger garage could also be constructed in the rear yard without a variance. Therefore, the denial of the variance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same district. c. That the special conditions oT° circunzstances do not result fi-onz the actions of the applicant. There are no special circumstances. d. That grarzting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special pi�ivilege tlzat is denied by this Title to owner°s of other lands, stT'LtCIZ[Y2S OY I7ZllICl�ZT1gS Zl2 the same distf�ict. The granting of this variance would confer special privileges that other property owners would not have.