Laserfiche WebLink
B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by <br />the land owner. The lot in question is shaped somewhat oddly as the rear of the property is larger <br />then the front, were the lot rectangular with the rear lot dimensions, a variance would not be <br />required. <br />C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Economics are not the sole consideration in this <br />request as the proposed addition would best be accomplished in the location proposed. <br />D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that <br />would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />Staff would accept a similar request under similar circumstances. <br />E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values <br />within the neighborhood. Property values should not be diminished by the construction of an <br />additional homesite in this location <br />F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The <br />proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Variance for a 14 <br />x 24 addition at their September 13, 1998 meeting. <br />OPTIONS: <br />1. Approve Variance as requested for a 14' x 24' addition <br />2. Approve Variance for a 12' x 24' addition <br />3. Deny Variance requested. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Option 1 or 2 <br />