04-20-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4749 Old Highway 8 Variance Request April 20, 2005 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 lot is not irregularly shaped. The size of the lot is also not irregular, however, it is not large enough to accommodate the existing development on it. 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 provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties have adequate parking and circulation. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It could be argued that the current property owner did not have control of the size of the property or building when the existing building was constructed, however, it also seems as though the difficulty is self-created in that the activities occurring on site are too intense for the size of the property. 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 confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others (with similarly sized parcels) in the same district. Although there have been many variance requests for reduced parking setbacks, there are very rare cases in which there are such extraordinary circumstances that it would justify eliminating the front setback all together. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The forty (40) foot variance is the minimum amount that would allow the applicants to add 13 parking spaces and a one-way drive aisle. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present and justifies a zero (0) setback. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.