Laserfiche WebLink
l�ounds V�ew Plaa�ning Cor�rna�sio� <br />�iecembea° 20, 2000 <br />l�egular l�eeting <br />The first criteria is ihat exceptional or e�raordinary circumstances �vauld <br />property which do not apply generalty to other properties in t e same zo�j <br />%!: l.l <br />result froix� lot size or shape, topography or other circumsta :,����ver v�i <br />� ��,� ;,, <br />property since the effective date hereof have had no contrc�I;a;>;''�aff deterrr <br />r,. <br />extraordinary circumstances which apply to this propert� ' ,'. <br />, . <br />The second criteria is that the literal interpretation of tl� <br />deprive ihe applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by ot <br />under the terms oFthis Title. Staf� does not believe t��e <br />would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoye� <br />The third criteria is that ihe special conditions or <br />of the applicant. Staf�believes the applicant is �� <br />have prompted him to apply for a variance. �� <br />prior io doizlg the work, he would have b;�°���olc <br />Zoning Code. �� <br />:�:� <br />The fourth criieria is that gran <br />special privilege that is denied <br />the same district. Staff believ� <br />special privilege due ta th� fa� <br />build �tittiin the five-fac��; ��il�< <br />The �f�I7 �ii1.�r��� is that tl�� ��� <br />the l�ards��iE�. � canomic co�t� <br />because the s#�u��ure ;i� alreac3 <br />�4�,�°sixth criteria is � <br />le or ta other pro <br />strongly tl�at grantin <br />this Title. In additi� <br />� <br />message to reside�� <br />i�ea�.�iremez�ts ��'��'eJ <br />Page 3 <br />isioxf�<�of this Tiile wo <br />>���ii�s in the same di <br />and <br />�s of the <br />ere no ��, <br />�;� <br />�� � <br />F � <br />li,::% <br />i <br />a� i��tes'p�'e�aiion of the Code <br />otli�a-s ii� th� district. <br />�ces da ��€�t r�st�l� �Z<c�m the actions <br />tisible fo�� tlic �onditians which <br />��t,a�plied fo�` z��building permit <br />violation of the <br />,� <br />�riance�� quested v��` not co�ifer on the applicant any <br />tie to �wi3ers of ot�r lands, struetures or buildings in <br />ntit��: ti�is varfA <�`e would confer upon the applicant a. <br />�r.�3t'c���c�•1�, c�'�� z�s would no� have been allowed to <br />aested is the minimum variance which would alleviate <br />�e shall not be considered a l�ardship. Staf�indieated <br />; the variance requested is the minimum that would be <br />- - _.:::��:. <br />tl�e ����z-i<�nce would not be znaterially detrimental to the purpose of this <br />ty i� the same zone. Staff, having considered tl�e circumstances, feels <br />1e'�ar'tance request would be materially deirimental to the purpose of <br />�; granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent, sending a <br />that it is acceptable to disregard the buildirng code and zoning code <br />ing approval throu�h the variance process. <br />�" . � ., <br />�he'la�t �ri�cria identified 'zs that the proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply <br />c��`li�}rt and air to adjacent property or substantially inci-ease the coiigestion of the public <br />sireets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or <br />impair values within the neighborhood. Comtnunity Development Director Ericson indicated <br />that while staff does not believe the structure impairs an adequate supply of lighi or air to the <br />adjoining property, if left in place, stormwater runoff could become a problem to the adjoining <br />property. It could also be argued, he stated, that the adjoining property's value could be <br />impacted by the structure located up to the property line. <br />