Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/25/06 <br />Minutes - Page 9 <br /> <br />Mr. Stark noted that the Planning Division had concluded that the <br />allowance of a fifteen foot variance would not alter the essential <br />character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, <br />safety, or general welfare, of the City or adjacent properties. Mr. <br />Stark further noted that the City had approved the lot split by their <br />previous action. <br /> <br />Discussion included sightline issues and perceptions; layout of <br />Dale Court; ingress/egress for driveway; interpretations of <br />changes to the character of the neighborhood by allowing the <br />variance; sources and review of several maps of the subject <br />property; the unique shape of the lot; and the marketability of the <br />lot at the present time without variance issuance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust noted past discussions at the Planning <br />Commission, during her tenure and at granting of the lot split, that <br />there would not be future consideration of variances to make the <br />lot buildable as designed; but the landowner would assume the <br />risk in finding a house design that would fit in with the unique <br />shape of the lot. <br /> <br />Applicant, Todd Iliff <br />Mr. Iliff provided a history of the lot split, as documented with the <br />applicant's letter of appeal dated September 15, 2006, and <br />included in the staff report. Mr. Iliff reviewed the practical <br />difficulties in meeting existing setback requirements on the unique <br />triangular-shaped lot; and highlighted differences in the <br />applicant's original request and staff recommendation for a fifteen <br />foot setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Iliffrespectfully requested that the City Council, acting as the <br />Board of Adjustment and Appeals, reverse the decision of the <br />Variance Board. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included consistency with the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan guidelines; landscaping and fencing <br />restrictions; visibility and safety issues; Purchase Agreements <br />rescinded due to inability to build a traditional home on the <br />unique lot following prospective buyers' discussions with City <br />staff; and approval period for City Council review and subsequent <br />action. <br />