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

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 6 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. In consideration of this application, staff suggested the following: • The grading of the lot created a physical constraint on the location of the pool. Based on City approval of a building permit for the pool, the home owners built the pool in a location that does not meet the required setback. Staff supports the setback variance. • The variance for the taller fence is less supportable. It is not clear that a four -foot fence would provide an inadequate security safeguard. Under the ordinance, four feet is enough. The ordinance clearly intends to prevent a tall fence around a back or side yard from closing in the front yard of a neighbor's abutting lot. Staff pointed out that corner lots have inherent constraints which should be recognized by the owner. While the grading of a lot may be out of a prospective buyer's control, the use of the lot once the house is constructed must recognize the physical surroundings as well as the internal aspects of the lot. A rear yard abutting a neighboring front yard must be considered when planning the use of the lot, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the setback variance based on physical constraint described in the report and deny the variance for the taller fence in the area equal to the front yard of the abutting lot. Chair Schaps asked if the adjacent neighbors have commented on this request. Mr. Smyser suggested that the neighbors be given an opporutniyt to speak for themselves. Chair Schaps noted the issues regarding a variance for the pool and a variance for a fence were sepearate. Mr. Corson requested an explanation about why the pool had been constructed in its current lccation. He acknowledged that the rear yard contains a drainage easement and asked whether it would be posible to direct the drainage around the pool. Mr. Powell stated in the center of the rear yard the applicant has custom landscaping in a "V" shape. He stated if the pool had been constructed in the middle of this area it would back up the drainage toward the house. • •