pf_03781 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 STAFF COMMENTS ON VARIANCE CRITERIA: 4.1 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created b�� the landowner: The City Planner has consistently concluded that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The City Planner had not, however, made a conclusion as to whether this hardship was created by the owner. Upon a thorough review of the records (staff reports and meeting agendas regarding the 2005 subdivision to the Planning Commission and City Council on August 3 and August 5, 2005 respectively), the Planning staff has concluded that, while the plight of the landowner may be due to circumstances unique to the property, those circumstances were created by the current applicant/owner when they successfully sought to subdivide the property in 2005. At the Planning Commission public hearing in 2005, a great deal of discussion occurred regarding the potential need for variances that might ultimately be required in order to make this lot marketable. The general consensus was that, while the subdivision did meet the minimum requirements for a Minor Subdivision, future variances were neither approved nor deemed appropriate as a future action. Specifically, Commissioner Boerigter stated, "the hardship was created by the property owner" (Planning Commission meeting minutes — August 3, 2005). 4.2 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The City Planner concludes that the required front yard or rear yard setback is too restrictive to accommodate a functionally designed home of a modest size on the parcel. The Planner has further concluded that a VARIANCE to the required front yard setback of up to15 feet would provide greater design flexibility and afford the eventual purchaser enough latitude to construct a home and attached garage. The Planning Division has concluded that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the offcial controls if a 15-foot VARIANCE to §1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements — Front Yard Setback) is granted. 4.3 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: This particular neighborhood has been improved over a number of years. Recent homes were constructed in the late 1990's and early 2000's, while others date back to the 1950's. This would explain some of the variation in front yard and side yard setbacks, but does not necessarily support such an allowance on this parcel. However, the allowance to afford home design flexibility would only enhance the new home and lead to a design that better fits the general character of the neighborhood. The Planning Division has concluded that the allowance of a 15-foot VARIANCE will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 4.4 Staff Conclusion: In order to grant a variance, the authorizing agency must determine that the variance meets all of the criteria described above. In this case, staff's revised conclusion is that this particular Variance request does not meet the criteria of being, "due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner." Staff is, therefore, hereby concluding that there is sufficient cause to deny the issuance of a variance. 5.0 VARIANCE BOARD RECOMMENDATION: PF3781_RCA_Appeal_100906Page 3 of 5