2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. Consider the Appeal of the Variance Board's Action to Deny the Request by Charles Weleczlci & Todd Iliff for a Variance to � 1004.016 (PF 3781) Coz�numunity Development Director John Stark reviewed the request and Variance Board determination and DENIAL on a 310 vote, based on the Variance Board's interpretation that the "hardship" was self-created and that a deviation to the Code would �ot be characteristic of the adjacent neighborhood; and the applicant's appeal to ihe City Council, pursuant to City Code, Section 1014.04C. Mr. Stark noted that the Planning Division had concluded that the allowance of a fifteen foot variance would ��ot alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of t�.e City or adjacent properties. Mr. Stark further noted that the City had approved the lot split by their previous action. Discussion included sightline issues and perceptions; layout of Acorn Road; ingresslegress for driveway; interpretations of changes to the character of the neighborhood by allowing t�e variance; sources and review of several r�iaps of the subject property; the unique shape of the lot; and the marketability of the lot at the present time without variance issuance. Councilmember Pust noted past discussions at the Planning Cornn�ission, during her tenure and at granting of the lot split, that there would not be �ture consideration of variances to mal{e the lot buildable as designed; but the landowner would assume the risk in finding a house design that would fit in with the unique shape of the lot. Applicant, Todd II�f Mr. Iliff provided a history of the lot split, as documented with the applicant's letter of appeal dated September 15, 2006, and included in the staff report. Mr. Iliff reviewed the practical difficulties in meeting existing setback requirements on the unique triangular-shaped lot; and highlighted differences in the applicant's original request and staff recommendation for a fifteen foot setback. Mr. Iliff respectfully requested �ha� the City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, reverse the decision of the Variance Board. Additional discussion included consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan guidelines; landscaping and fencing restrictions; visibility and safety issues; Purchase Agreements rescinded due to inability to build a traditional home on the unique lot following prospective buyers' discussions with City s#a�f, and approval period for City Council review and subsequent action. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the pz'oblezns appeared to be with vision concerns at the point of the yard; further opining that she was not supportive of the original subdivision, knowing this would create an unbuildable lot. Public Comment Consider the Appeal of the Variance Board's Action to Deny the Request by Charles Weieczki & Todd Tiiff for a Variance to � 1004.016 (PF 3781)