Agenda Packets - 2003/03/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance Appeal March 24, 2003 Page 2 parking be satisfied? One could suggest that as a condition of the variance, the property owner could, through a lease provision, limit the number of resident vehicles to no more than two per unit, which would be consistent with the parking capacity of the site, but then there would be no parking for visitors. Upon closer inspection of the site, it does appear that there is sufficient room for additional parking and/or garages on the east side of the property could be constructed on the site, however a survey would need to be completed to verify setbacks and spacing requirements. The neighboring residents are opposed to any additional impervious surface or garages, siting agreements that were made in the 1960s when the block of four-plexes were developed. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria as 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 are as follows with responses supported by the Planning Commission: a. Exceptional or extraordinary 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 circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is zoned R-3 and is improved with a four unit residential dwelling. The property is similar to the other four-unit dwellings in this area of the City. The lot is not irregularly shaped however there is a slope toward the rear of the property and a drainage easement that restricts development in this area. Other than the slope, there does not appear to be any exceptional circumstances associated with the property. 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. The subject property appears similar to the majority of R-3 zoned properties in this area. The literal interpretation of the provisions found in the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that no other property has increased density by expanding to a six unit residential dwelling. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The four-plexes in this area may have been constructed prior to the enactment of the zoning code provision which requires garage stalls for each unit. To that end, the