Agenda Packets - 2003/06/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Woods Variance Appeal June 9, 2003 Page 3 Driveway Width. The driveway, as it existed prior to the expansion, was already nonconforming. The width of the driveway at its widest point was/is 41 feet, including the area that extends beyond the south face of the garage. According to Section 1121.09, Subd. 1(b) of the Zoning Code, the maximum width allowed for driveways in an R-2 zoning district is 36 feet. The driveway exceeds the maximum by five (5) feet. Hardship Standards: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make a decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria were addressed and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their public hearing. The criteria and the Planning Commission’s responses, 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 zoned R-2 and is improved with a duplex, which is not uncommon within the City. All properties zoned R-2 are required to comply with the driveway and curb cut width requirements identified in the Zoning Code. The lot is not irregularly shaped and is relatively flat, which is similar to the majority of properties within the City. There does not appear to be any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with this property According to Ms. Woods, cars parked along the opposite side of Woodlawn Drive frequently turn around using the applicant’s driveway, and frequently miss the driveway, thus driving on the area that is now paved. The Planning Commission did not feel that the location of the property, across the street from a multifamily housing facility with on street parking, was a hardship. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The subject property seems to be similar to the majority of properties in the same zoning district. The literal interpretation of the provisions found in the Zoning Code may not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The property owner installed the driveway expansion without a permit