01-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Gates Variance Planning Case No. 545-98 • January 6, 1999 Page 2 The applicant then approached the City Council on October 12, 1998 in an effort to resolve the situation by means of a special use permit or a"grandfathering" action. Mr. Gates related that the truck has been there for years and his home is the only place to conveniently park the vehicle. In response, the Council explained that this particular ordinance was put to a vote of the community and the community decided that commercial vehicles were not appropriate in residential districts. Staff is duty-bound, the Council added, to enforce the Codes of the City to the best of its ability. As a result of this exchange, Mr. Gates resolved to alter his building plans to be able to park his vehicle inside. 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 relate 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 property which does 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 applicant has been instructed by the City to either park his work vehicle in his garage or remove it from the property. This is resulting from a Code requirement that restricts commercial vehicles from being parked outside on a residential district. To accommodate the truck, the building plans for the under-construction garage were revised, going from a ten-foot door to an eleven-foot door. The additional foot puts the height of the garage at 16 feet instead of the originally-proposed 15 feet. 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 literal interpretation of the language regarding accessory building height, if upheld, would require the applicant to demolish the work already done on the garage expansion (i.e., remove footings, foundation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the garage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is measured from the exterior grade, not the interior floor elevation. •