Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Resolution 560 -98 <br />September 2, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that <br />is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. <br />Depending upon how you categorize the property, it can be thought that a special <br />privilege would be conferred on the applicant that is typically denied to other residential <br />properties. Among corner lots, the variance would not be conferring a special privilege <br />to the applicant. <br />5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. <br />Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of <br />living on a corner lot. <br />6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other <br />properties in the same zone. <br />Assuming that corner lots are different from typical residential lots due to the increased <br />risk to public safety - -that of the residents of the property and other motorists passing by <br />the property -- granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of <br />the Code as public safety would take precedence. <br />7. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or <br />substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or <br />endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the <br />neighborhood. <br />Allowing for a variance to maintain the two curb cuts can only benefit the public safety. <br />In addition, approval would not increase any congestion or impair an adequate supply of <br />light or air to adjacent properties. <br />Clearly, it can be shown that there is a legitimate public safety basis upon which to approve a <br />variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road. Whether or not the criteria support <br />approval of a variance in this situation is a matter of interpretation. <br />Recommendation: <br />Given the ambiguous nature of Section 1121.09, Subd, 5e, Staff is presenting the Planning <br />Commissions with two versions of Planning Commission Resolution 558 -98, one approving the <br />variance request and the other denying the request. <br />James Ericson, Planning Associate <br />N: 1DATAIOROUPSICOMDEV1DEVCASES153 5- 981TOBiAS.RPT <br />