07/11/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 3 to the north and east of the house. The drainfield prevents a driveway running on the south of the house. These physical constraints limit the location where a structure could be built. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action. It was noted that the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff advsied that the low- lying, wet area to the north of the house limits the location of a driveway to serve the area behind the house where there might be upland to build a storage building on The area behind the house is also limited by the transmission line easement, even if a driveway could be built to serve it. Staff recommended approving the variance application with the following condition: 1. A building permit must be obtained, which will require that the building meets the size and other requirements of the zoniniordinance and building code. 4. T. Chair Schaps asked if staff has been in contact with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Smyser stated staff has not been in Contact with the adjourning property owners and he was not certain whether the applicant has been in contact with them regarding this application. Mr. Lyden asked if there were details regarding the size, etc. of the proposed building. Mr. Smyser stated because this was an application for a variance, not a building permit, specific details regarding the building were not requested. He indicated if the variance is approved, then the applicant will be required to apply for a building permit at which time staff will ensure that the building meets all code requirements. He noted because the property is quite large, the applicant would not be limited to a small structure. Mr. Lyden asked for the size of the parcel. Mr. Smyser stated the parcel is 1,053 feet long by approximately 500 feet wide. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment.