09-02-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

White Variance Planning Case No. 533-98 September 2, 1998 • Page 2 Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties 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 factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. A gravel walking path, however, would not be subject to a building permit or the setback requirement. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of • rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The applicant is faced with two options if a variance is not granted. Either the sidewalk would need to be cut back approximately two feet to meet the setback requirement or it would need to be removed, with access gained by another means, although not necessarily in a different location. The applicant could also reinstall the same type of walkway that had been present prior to the newly-constructed sidewalk. Given this information, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. While the applicant cannot be held responsible for the slope of the land, the variance is requested because he did not obtain a building permit, and consequently installed the walkway structure over the setback. 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.