PCAgenda_96Jun17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• D. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RAMP AND THE PROPERTY The proposed ramp is modular in design and is built without footings. Therefore, if the property owners would no longer need to use the ramp or if the property were sold to someone who did not need it, the ramp could be removed with a minimum of time and expense. It extends approximately fourteen feet from the house toward the street, where a concrete walk will connect the ramp to the street for loading/unloading purposes. The size and slope of the ramp were designed specifically to accommodate Mrs. Utne's medical limitations and the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Staff and the applicant examined the possibility of having the ramp built in the back yard rather than in the front yard. The smaller size of the rear door and the interior layout of the home will not accommodate a wheelchair access point. E. ANALYSIS This variance may be granted only if the planning commission finds that it meets the criteria for granting a variance. Four of the criteria (that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, and will not impair the use of public streets) appear to • be met without great analysis. The remaining four criteria are discussed below. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. Staff knows of no impact on property values with respect to wheelchair ramps. The ramp has been designed to be orderly and professional looking in appearance. As for the value of the property itself, the ramp should not be an issue for the long-term value of the property since it is not permanently in the ground and can be removed by future property owners if desired. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; that a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the chapter were carried out; that the variance is not sought principally to increase financial gain of the owner and that a substantial hardship would result from the denial of the variance. Without the variance, Mrs. Utne will not be able to access her property without outside assistance. This situation creates an on-going health and safety hardship issue which goes beyond "mere inconvenience." The design and configuration of the house have made it necessary for the ramp to be built in the proposed location and constitute the property- related hardship in this case. The variance is not being sought principally for financial gain • and is necessary for the property owners to enjoy full use of their property. The requested