09-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lestina 2nd Driveway Variance Report September 21, 2011 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body 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 individual criteria, with 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 only thing exceptional or unusual about this property is that the house, original garage and driveway were all placed on the far south side of the property. In order for the property owner to build a new garage that had better vehicle access and met setback requirements, it had to be put on the north side of the house. Even if the new garage had been placed closer to the house, the original driveway really would not have been able to be utilized to access this garage (there would have only been one curb cut then). 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. While it is true that some lots do have two curb cuts, there are not many of them, especially on interior lots. It is more common to have two curb cuts on a corner lot. It is even less common to see properties with two completely separate driveways. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to one curb cut would not be depriving her of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant may not be responsible for the placement of the house and original driveway, but she owned the property when the existing garage and north driveway were built, and was responsible for where they were placed. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Even considering that other lots have two curb cuts, staff believes that granting this variance would be a conference of special privilege to the applicant that would typically be denied to other residential properties.