Agenda Packets - 2004/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mourad Variance Appeal Report August 9, 2004 Page 2 The applicant constructed the driveway and failed to obtain a permit for the work. Had a permit been obtained beforehand, the curb cut would not have been permitted to be wider than twenty-four (24) feet. In October of 2003, the City sent a letter to Mr. Mourad explaining that a permit was necessary for the driveway work. Mr. Mourad applied for a permit on October 30, 2003, after the work had already been completed. The description of work for the permit stated, “Remove blacktop driveway and replace with concrete.” The drawing of the driveway submitted with the permit grossly under-reported the size of the already constructed curb cut. Mr. Mourad states that he simply removed the existing blacktop driveway and replaced it with concrete. However, using aerial photographs, Staff was able to ascertain that in April of 2003, the driveway at 7090 Silver Lake Road was twenty-two feet wide and had a four to five foot concrete sidewalk along side of it (see attached aerial photo). The last driveway permit that is on file with the City is for a driveway with a twenty-two foot wide curb cut. In addition, the April 2003 aerial photo also shows that an evergreen tree was in place where the eastern portion of the driveway is now. The evergreen tree had to be removed for this driveway expansion to take place. Staff spoke with the homeowner regarding this variance request. He is requesting to be allowed to leave the driveway as built because of the fact that the concrete is patterned and removing portions of the driveway would alter the pattern. If this variance request is denied, the applicant would need to remove a twelve (12) foot wide strip of concrete from the street to the property line. Beyond the curb cut, the driveway meets code and would be permitted to remain as is. 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 City Council, 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 property is approximately16,553 square feet and has one hundred twenty-six feet (126) feet of street frontage on Woodale Drive, which is the street that the driveway accesses. This lot exceeds the minimum lot requirements. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property.