12-06-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Busch Variance & CUP Report December 6, 2006 Page 2 Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make 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 the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: 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 approximately 92 feet wide and 210 feet deep and fairly level. There is a large Red Oak tree directly behind the garage, which the applicant prefers to keep. Due to this tree, the homeowner’s ability to expand the garage to the rear is limited. 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. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because of the placement of the tree in the backyard, the applicant is unable to expand the entire width of the garage to the rear. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the original owner of the property, but had nothing to do with the placement of the tree. The tree was in this location previous to the house being built in 1976. d. That granting the variance requested would 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minimum amount that the applicant feels is necessary for the proposed garage expansion.