09/27/1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • 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 along 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 would conclude that a variance to allow a 6' privacy fence in this location would not meet the above Findings of Fact. A compromise could be a 6' fence on the rear property line. This fence would match the existing 6' fence on the east side of 1101 Holly Drive which was constructed to screen the Trappers Crossing Development from 1101 Holly. However, we would not support a 6' fence within the County sight/distance triangle. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this variance at their September 8, 1999 meeting. After considerable discussion (see attached minutes) Kirk Corson made a motion to deny the variance request. Motion failed with 2 ayes (Corson and Johnson), 2 nays (Schilling and Lane), and 2 abstained (Carlson and Dunn). Chair Schaps was unable to attend. the meeting but did send the board a memo supporting the staff recommendation of denial. OPTIONS: 1. Approve variance as requested. 2. Approve variance on rear property line only, fencing will then match fencing on east side of 1101 Holly Drive. 3. Deny variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Option 3