CCP 03-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . circumstances of the property limit its use compared to other properties within the R-2 Zone. 5. The hardship was not created by the owner. The lot lines follow the original plat, which was created before the eUITent zoning ordinance was in place. Furthcrmore, the 20 foot utility easement in front of the structure limits the use of the property. 6. Granting the variance would not alter thc essential character of the neighborhood. The existing dwelling to the south encroaches closer to the lot line that this proposcd addition. A number of the structures along the west side of Lake Johanna are on narrow lots and encroach on the side yard setback. Adding the small porch would have little to no noticeable or negative affect on the subject property or adjacent properties. 7. The variance is not based on economic considerations. The narrowness of the lot and the utility easement limits the usability of the lot. The addition to the principal structure would be subject to the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the Variance application. Any significant changes to these plans, as detcrmined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The variance shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year from and after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun within that time period. 3. Gutters or other water control measures shall be installed so that stoffilwater is not directed toward adjacent properties or toward Lake Johanna. 4. Thc applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of these permits before any building permits are issued. PC# 06-006b: Accessory Structure Variance - No recommendation Although two different motions were made, the Plmilling Commission does not have a recommendation for the variance to construct an addition to the accessory structure. A motion was made to recommend denial of the variance; however, the motion failed to pass on a vote of 3-3 with Commissioner Bezdicek abstaining. A second motion was made for approval with the recommended conditions. That motion also failed to pass with a vote of3-3 with Commissioner Bczdicek abstaining. Since the Planning Commission determined that no additional information was needed, there was a consensus to not table the application. A third motion was made to send the application to the City Council with no recommendation, which passed unanimously. Staffhad recommended approval of the variance to construct an addition to the accessory structure with conditions. Due to that recommendation, the original planning case report did include findings that supported approval, which are provided below. However, Commissioner Larson did provide findings for denying the variance, which are also provided. I\Melro-rne1_uslardenhillsIPlanning\Planning Cm"esI2006\06-006 Westlund variance (PENDING)',030206 - CC Report - H'estlund Variance.doc Page 3 of6