09-01-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Melsaether Variance Report September 1, 2004 Page 2 If this variance request is denied, the applicant would need to remove the middle twenty- five (25) feet of the driveway, thereby creating two separate driveways of twenty (20) feet each. 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 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: 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 approximately 40,075 square feet and has one hundred ninety-six feet (196) feet of street frontage on Silver Lake Road. This lot exceeds the minimum lot requirements. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. 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 literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would 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 driveway was constructed without a permit. d. That granting the variance requested would 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. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The Planning Commission would first need to determine whether a hardship exists.