06-08-22 PC Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 of 7 According to the Applicant, a third car garage stall for a single family home is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-1 Zoning District because the existing neighborhood includes multiple garage additions and has a variety of different garage and housing styles. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicant, the Subject Property’s irregular shape creates a practical difficulty due to the curvature of the parcel’s front and side property lines. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot, as the required side yard setback for corner lots was ten (10) feet when the property was built in 1953. According to the Applicant, other areas on the property were considered for a freestanding garage, but were ultimately not chosen because placements further from the property line would include removing 100+ year old oak trees. Adding behind the existing garage would involve significant drainage issues and would require major regrading under the drip line of some of the 100+ year old oak trees. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, the existing neighborhood has homes with a variety of different garages and housing styles, and the proposed variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Garage have been added to the road side of existing homes in the neighborhood in the past. The topography and odd lot shapes make the neighborhood quite varied. The homes are not all the same distance from the road or each other. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. The Planning Commission members should state their rationale prior to the vote on the requested variance. A recommended motion by the Planning Commission should include the direction that Staff and the City Attorney prepare proposed findings of fact for City Council consideration.