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 /> • <br /> James Ericson, Planning Associate <br /> N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\535-98\TOBIAS.RPT _ <br />