1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Tobias Driveway Variance Planning Case No. 535 -98 September 16, 1998 Page 2 applicant a letter in which two choices were indicated -- either remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road or apply for and receive a variance, The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. Analysis: To understand the prevalence of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, Staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18.5 percent) have multiple curb -cuts. (Refer to the attached corner parcel inventory.) In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more than one curb cut is less than one percent. The case can be made that corner properties present unique safety issues, with as many as four distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some corner lots, because of tree - cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby increasing the safety risk. The City Code indicates in Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e that for the Planning Commission to waive the requirement limiting a property to one curb cut, it can do so in the interest of public safety. Staff is unsure if that requirement supersedes the criteria for granting a variance, as found in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Code. Because of this, all of the criteria will be examined, which are as follows: 1 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 fact that this property is a corner lot, while not exceptional or unusual, does present some safety considerations over which the properly has little control 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. As indicated above, twenty percent of the corner lots within the general area of the subject property have multiple curb cuts. Requiring the applicant to remove one curb cut would deprive him of a use that many other corner lots enjoy. When compared against all residential properties, no deprivation would exist, as the number of all residential properties with multiple curb cuts is less than one percent. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant did not cause the non - conforming use, but has perpetuated its use and has improved upon the driveway in violation of the City Code.