1997 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Lattrez Variance Request Planning Case No. 503-97 September 17, 1997 Page 2 V'aricance Crrteria: The criteria for granting a variance ar� staied in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. Ther� are seven standards which need to be enet in order to jusiify the i3oard of fldjustments and Appea.i's gra.nting oia variance. The Codes of this City i�ave been p�at inYo place to ensure the orderly growth and development of the communiry while sirtiuitaneausly protecting the health, safety, general welfare, comfart and repose of the residents. To deviate from these Codes, there must be a compelling reason to do so. There must be a hardship applicable to the prop�rty or situation that has not been created by the applicant. In ather words, a hardship siivation is present when the strict appIication of the Zoning Code makes reasonable use of the property impraciicat. Economic considerations alone shaIl not constitute a hardship. Each of the criteria are listed belaw with a short response in relation to this particutar variance request. �xce�tional or exira9rdinary �irr�amstances a��ly_to this .�ro.�erty which are out of the owners control: i'h�re are no exceptional or extraordinary circutnstat�ces that would prompt the granting of this variance. The Lattrez' driveway prior io the add'ation was approximately 22 feet wide at the street. While the applicants are not the cause of the 33� foot wide driveway, there are no conditions present on fihe properiy that would legitimateiy warrant s�ch a driveway width. This criterion cannat be met. 2. Literal inte re tion of Code would deprive a�nlicants rights, G,�mmonl�,,,�n1Qyed b� , thers in the same districi: When permits are issued for the installation of driveways, ihe plans are reviewed �o ensure that all wark performed wilt conform to the Codes of �he City. The strict application of the Code is consistently and uniforml� dorte without any deviation. This criterian cannot be met. S�ecial conditions do no�esult from actions of th� �licant� Again, while the applicants are not ihe direct cause of the over-wide driveway, it was their desire to have such a driveway installed. This criterion cannot be met. 4. n in �hi��ri�nce will not canfer onio th� a�iicant a s�eci��rivile�e• Granting of this variance would confer onta the appiicant a special privilege not afforded to others in the same district. Granting this variance would increase the allovved driveway width at the street by ftfty percent. This criterion cannot be met. 5. Th� variance reaue,��,�s�i�the minimum variance wiii�h would alleviat� th€ hards� From staf3�s perspective, there is no hardship. But because fihe variance requested a.�nnaunts to more �han a car-width, any iess of a variance probahly would not offer the same ease of access. This criterion can be met. 6. Th� rantin,� of this variance wot�td not be materia!!v detrirn�ntal to the �ur�ps�c �f ihig, 'Ti�I� or to oih r roper� owner� in thiG c�ist� The intent and puepose of ihe Code wiih regard to driveways is clear. Driveways aY th� curb-cut are limitecf to 22 feet in width, or in '-��