04-17-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 12 '96 15:42 KENNEDY & GRAVEN P.4 Joyce Pruitt April 12, 1996 Page3 • If the Planning Commission and City Council were to consider allowing the construction of a 24'x44' gasoline pump canopy as requested by the applicant, the Planning Commission should consider establishing criteria which would allow it to distinguish this requested new structure on a non-conforming use property from future requests to build new structures on other non-conforming use properties. Section 1125.02, subd. 2 states that "a variance of the provisions of the zoning code maybe issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Planning Commission) to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land . . A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on theapplicant special privileges denied by the owners of other lands, structuresor • buildings in the same district. . . e. . . Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship." In applying the criteria set forth in clauses a, b, d and e of Section 1125.02, subd. 2 of the City Code, it would not appear from the facts as they have been presented that the applicant's circumstances would meet the criteria as stated. This is the case primarily because all properties within R-1 through B-4 zones within the City of • Mounds View are all subject to a 30-foot front yard setback requirement as established by Section 1104.01 of the City Code. These requirements of Section 1104.01 apply to all properties in those zones regardless of whether those properties • existed prior to the ado•do• o .: -. . _ ._ argued by the applicant that applying the same setback requirements to his property would create an undue hardship in which exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the applicant's property which do not apply generally to all the other properties in similar and other zones throughout the City that must comply with the same 30-foot setback requirements. Applying the setback requirement of the City Code would not deprive the applicant of any rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district since all of the other properties in the same and similar zones would have to abide by the same 30-foot setback requirement. In fact, granting the variance to the applicant may arguably confer on the applicant a special privilege that is in fact denied to other owners of properties in. the same zone or similar zones which must abide by the the 30-foot setback requirement. In addition, even if some argument could be made in favor of granting a variance of • a Iesser nature, a 24-foot variance on a 30-foot setback requirement would appear to be an extraordinary variance request. The Planning Commission and City Council RCL103015 1N225-45