CCP 02-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . conformity of the dwelling. It is open to interpretation if a hardship to allow the existing structure to remain within the side setback exists since the dwelling can be moved into a conforrning location. However, moving the dwelling would certainly result in the loss of several mature trecs. The Planning Commission found that a hardship did not exist. The City can deny a subdivision application ifit is deterrnined that the subdivision would harm the public welfare; however, it would be difficult make findings that this subdivision proposal would harrn the public welfare since it meets or exceeds all provisions of the R-l Zone and the subdivision ordinance. Although more review may bc needed ofMr. Findell's assertions, a cursory review of the information he submitted related to lot dimensions in the neighborhood does indicate that the size of his proposed lots would not be unique or obtrusive in the neighborhood. Planninl! Commission Recommendatiou At their February 1,2006, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #06-001 and voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance based on the following findings of fact: I. The hardship may be considered an inconvenience. Since it is possible for the dwelling to be moved and thereby meet all setbacks, a hardship does not exist. The applicant has indicated that it is possible to move the structure without adding significant cost. If the structure is moved, the need for a variance would be eliminated. 2. The conditions are not entirely unique to this property. It is not unique topographical, lot size, or lot dimensions that are making the variance necessary. Although the property does have a number of mature trees that add to the value and character of the neighborhood, there is sufficient space on the proposed western property to place a conforrning structure. While the mature trees may pre-date the currently landowner, meaning he or she did not create the perceived hardship, the Ordinance does not clearly state that protecting trees meets the hardship requirements of a variance. 3. Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and would detract from the character of the neighborhood. Subsequently, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the minor subdivision based on the following findings of fact: I. The non-conforrnity of the existing structure on the property would increase if the subdivision were approved. The current structure does not meet the required 40 foot front setback. The subdivision would increase the non-conformity of the structure by allowing the structure to encroach on the setback of the proposed new lot line. 2. The subdivision would result in two properties that would be detrimental to the public welfare and would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. lIMetro-inet.us\ardenhillsIPlanningIPlanning Cases\2006\06-002 Fit/dell minor subdivision and variance (PENDING) 1022206 - CC Report- Fit/dell Minor Suhdivision & variance. doc Page 20[5