Laserfiche WebLink
The new lot would not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. A variance would be <br />necessary. <br />Findings for Variance <br />In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall <br />make a finding of fact: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property not created by the land owner. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable <br />use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />The existing use of the lot as a single family residence is not threatened by the status quo. <br />There are no unique physical circumstances. The sole purpose of the variance is to allow <br />an additional lot to be created to provide economic gain. Granting an unjustified variance <br />would be conferring a special privilege and would not be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br />Whether it is advisable to allow for the creation of additional lots in this neighborhood by <br />splitting the existing lots is a policy question that may merit consideration by the City. <br />However, the application under consideration would create a lot that does not meet <br />current requirements and there is no justification for the requested variance. Without the <br />variance, the minor subdivision cannot occur. <br />Resolution 01-119 denies both the variance and the minor subdivision and included <br />findings to justify the denials. <br />PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ACTION <br />The P & Z considered the application on August 8. A motion to approve the variance and <br />minor subdivision failed 3-4. A subsequent motion to deny both actions failed for lack of <br />a second. <br />