2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

,_ Variance Request August 1, 2001 Page 3 Staff woudd be concerned that the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the purpose of the Code in that it would constitute a special privilege, tivould be _based on a economic factors, afad would posszbly set a precedent for all future subdivision requests. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of l'eght and air to adjacent property or substantialiy increase the cangestion of the public streets ar increase the danger of fire or endanger the pablie safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhoad. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Based on staf�s review of the request and the code requirements, it does not appear that there is sufficient hardshig and practical dif�culty associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance requested. The Planning Commission, however, should discuss these criteria and open the floor to public comment before coming to any concIusions. Final Thought: Granted, the five-foot variance requested is minimal (representing a five-percent reduction in the width of the lot} which is comparable to reducing a 10-foot sideyard setback to 9.5 feet. Where staff has the -�:; most concern, however, is thai once the variance request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning -- and NOT the location of the house, the element of hardship is no longer apparent. Staff does believe that there would be just cause and reasonable hardship to reduce the sideyard setback of the proposed middle lot because it would be based upon the location of the house and not solely on economic factors. This would result in only one of the lots (Lot 5) being able to be zoned R-2, however. Recommendation: Based upon the above findings and the lack of demonstrated hardship, staffrecommends denial of the praposed variance and has drafted Resolution 668 for the Commission's action. Ifthe applicant would consider scaiing back his rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5, s�affwould be willing to recommend approval of a reduced-sideyard setback variance, associated with the proposed middle lot . James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map (Eachibit A) 2. Subdivision Map {Exhibit B.) N:IDATA\GROLSPSICOMDEVIpevelopment Cases1VR01-0a9 (Gustafson)1Variance Report - August 1, 2001.doc