2007-03-14 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Commission finds that the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the lot. The Commission specifically finds that extraordinary circumstances related to topography make a variance necessary to provide a reasonable use of the property. c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Special circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and do not result from the actions of the petitioner. The Commission finds that the hardship is caused by a combination of topography and setback regulations and is not caused by actions of the petitioner. d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare and safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city. The Commission finds that the variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare or safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission finds that the variance if granted would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area. The Commission finds that sight lines of other property owners would not be significantly impacted by the proposed structure and that the location of the lot on the outside of a curve would substantially negate any sight-lines issues of locating closer to the front property line. e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district that the subject property is located. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the City Code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The Commission finds that the use proposed is for single family home, which is permitted in the R-2 zoning district in which the property (building site) is located. Other properties in the district enjoy a reasonable opportunity to construct a single family use and to deny this same opportunity would create an undue hardship. 5) The Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the variance proposed is the minimum necessary to accomplish the permitted use. 6) Surrounding property owners expressed concerns that the additional traffic and speed of the traffic would adversely impact the neighborhood. The Commission finds that the addition of five more homes that would be allowed by the plat and more specifically the variance to allow a single home on lot 6 would not