Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meetiug -10/09/06 <br />Miuutes - Page 16 <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing continued the Public Hearing for the above- <br />referenced request. <br /> <br />Community Development Director John Stark briefly summarized <br />request, as previously detailed at the September 25, 2006 City <br />Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark addressed the further review of the staff reports and <br />minutes of the Planning Commission, Variance Board and City <br />Council regarding both the current variance request and the <br />previous subdivision request establishing the subject property in <br />2005. Mr. Stark noted staff's revised conclusion, following <br />review of the additional research materials, was that this particular <br />variance request doesn't meet the criteria of being, "due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the <br />landowner;" and staff concluded that there is sufficient cause to <br />deny issuance of a variance. <br /> <br />Applicant, Todd Iliff <br />Mr. Iliff referenced his narrative description dated June 23, 2005 <br />as the original request for a minor subdivision; various schematics <br />of the lot; narrative description dated July 13, 2006 regarding the <br />setback variance request; his letter of appeal dated September 15, <br />2006; and detailed his notes and records regarding the subdivision <br />request. Mr. Illiff alleged that his perception of staff discussions, <br />and those being presented by the Variance Board were not in <br />agreement. Mr. Iliff reviewed the boundary survey map; <br />discussion and proposed design of potential homes for the unique- <br />shaped lot; buildability of the lot with a tradition and/or non- <br />traditional home; and the current housing market. <br /> <br />Mr. Iliff respectfully requested that the City Council grant the <br />variance to allow a traditionally-designed home to be built in <br />keeping with the neighborhood, rather than a more modem design <br />or non-aesthetically pleasing materials. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson provide his interpretation following <br />review of the Council packet materials as presented; and <br />concurred with the position of the Planning Department in not <br />finding a lack of hardship, with practical difficulties created due <br />to the circumstances of the landowner; and supported the <br /> <br />the Appeal of the <br />Variance Board's <br />Action to Deny the <br />Request by Charles <br />Weleczki & Todd <br />Iliff for a Variance <br />to ~ 1004.016 (PF <br />3781) <br />