2015-06-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

47 surfaces that may have much broader applicability than just single-family properties and so may 43 take considerable time to complete. City staff is comfortable that the proposed improvements are 49 consistent with the likely zoning amendment, and is supportive of the variance to avoid 50 penalizing the applicant for the time it takes the City to implement the contemplated amendment. 51 VARIANCE ANALYSIS 52 REVIEW OF VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS: Section 1009.040 of the City Code establishes 53 a mandate that the Variance Board make five specific findings about a variance request as a 54 prerequisite for approving the variance. Planning Division staff has reviewed the application and 55 offers the following draft findings. 56 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff believes 57 that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the 53 residential improvements conform to the size and scale of what is promoted by the 59 Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies for residential areas. 60 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. 61 Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the 62 zoning ordinances because while the new improvements will involve more "building 63 footprints and paved surfaces" than the code text strictly allows, the zoning ordinance's 64 intent is to regulate impervious coverage and the proposed impervious coverage is within 65 the regulatory limit. 66 C. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division 67 staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the 63 improvements would appear and function like a typical residential property while the 69 proper installation and maintenance of a pervious paving system will mitigate excess 70 storm water impacts. 71 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 72 landowner. Planning Division staff believes that the unique circumstances that justify the 73 approval of the requested variance in this case are twofold; first, the parcel has 74 substandard area, which has the effect of the proposed improvements occupying a larger 75 percentage of the property than if the improvements were situated on a parcel of 76 conforming area Second, the proposal is consistent with code requirements likely to be 77 adopted in the future, but staff is uncertain about when the necessary zoning amendment 73 might be ready to present to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and a 79 recommendation for City Council action. so e. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although 81 the proposed residence is larger than the historically small homes in this area, many of 82 these older homes were originally built as cabins, and the scale of the proposed 83 development is consistent with that of the newer homes that are being built to replace the 84 older structures. For this reason, the variance, if approved, would not negatively alter the 85 character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 86 Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code explains that the purpose of a variance is "to 87 permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a ss parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the 89 zoning." The proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above requirements essential 90 for approving variances. Moreover, the proposed improvements would likely be permitted by the PF14-030 RVBA 120314 Page 3 of 5