07-25-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8290 Sunnyside CUP & VR Request July 25, 2007 Page 3 Variance Discussion A variance is required for this request because the garage would exceed 35 feet in width. If the area of the garage were 952 square feet or less, there would be no limit on the width. While there are no explicit width limits for garages less than 952 square feet, there are practical limits due to minimum garage depths. The rationale for limiting a garage width is based solely on aesthetics. Previous Commissions and Councils have held that by limiting the width of a garage, the garage cannot dwarf the home or be the dominant feature on the lot. While one can argue and disagree about what is or is not aesthetically pleasing, garages tend to be devoid of any interesting architectural features and lacking in character. Limiting their width helps preserve the ideal of the home being the dominant feature rather than the garage. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be considered favorably, the burden is on the applicant 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 Planning Commission, 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: 1. 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 located on Sunnyside Road and was one of the first homes built in the area in 1938. The garage was built well before Tim & Collette bought the property in 1996, and was placed near the south property line facing sideways, rather than facing the street like most other garages in the city. 2. 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 literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that most garages are not set on the lot sideways which allows property owners to expand their garages to the rear and not exceed the 35 foot width limit. Due to the garage sitting sideways and being located approximately 14 feet from the side property line, the applicants have limited options. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special circumstances or conditions do not result from the applicant in that Mr. Clemons and Ms. O’Donovan had no control over the placement of the garage on the lot.