2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 STAFF COMMENTS ON VARIANCE CRITERIA: �,� T��e ftti�� a� �t�e l�r��lawrt�z' �� li�e I� c.�r��t��s��r:� ��iq �� €� ��r� ��rn�er� n� ��artfirl ��. t�e �: � T�� :'r,y�� a�tt�; � �£ t.t�;��=�t�nt'iy �n�5�i��1. t�7� �hr �1i �'�t af thc ��d��r��_�� =_s 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 thoroughreview 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 bv the current ap��icantlowne� when they successfullysought to subdivide the property in 2005. At the Planning Commissionpublic hearing in 2005, a great deal of discussion occurred regarding the potential need for variances that might ultimatelybe 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 fi�ture 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 �� the official controls: The CityPlanner concludes that the required frontyard or rear yarc� setback is too restrictive to accommodate a functionallv desi ed home of a modest size on the parcel. The Planner has further concluded that a Vi�R1i�N�E to the required front yard setback of up to15 feet would provide greater design flexibility and afford the eventual purchaser enough latitudeto construct a home and attached garage. The Planning Division has concluded that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a 15-foot 'VA�A�i�E to �1.004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements — Front Yard Setback) is granted. 4.3 The variance, if �ranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: Thisparticular neighhorhood 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 flexibilitywould 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 akte� the essential character of the Locality, nor adversely affect the pu�b�ic health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 4.4 Staff Conclusion: In order to grant a variance, the authorizing agencymust determine that the variance meets all of the criteriadescribed above. In this case, staffs revisedconclusion is that this particularVariance request does not meet the criteria nfbeing, "due to circumstances unique to the property�ot 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: -�'F�'�81 L�{:A _ t�*}��I_ l