Laserfiche WebLink
� , <br />,� _ <br />... <br />'.•_ <br />A�aalysiso <br />As ihe Planning Cotnmission is aware, in order to grant a variance, there must be a demonstrated <br />hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of <br />th� Code overly burdensome or even restrictive ta a praperty owner. State statutes require that <br />the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each appiicatzon and make its decision in <br />accordance with these criteria. <br />There was much discussion regatding these seven criteria at the last meeting, and based upon that <br />discussion, staffhas drafted Ianguage that relates to the criteria in Resolution 550-99, a resolution <br />which approves the Leons' variance request. The individual criteria, with responses, are as <br />follows: <br />a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the propeYty which do not apply <br />generally to other pr�operties in the same zone or vicrnity crnd result from loP size o� <br />shape, topogYaphy or other ci�cumstances over which the owners of the propert�� since <br />the effective date he�eof hczve had no control. <br />7386 Parkview Terrace is a substandard lot--its area comprises only 9,150 square feet, a <br />condition the current owners had no part in or control over. The lot was allowed as part <br />of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition, which replatted a section of larger R-2 zoned ';.r <br />lots to smaller R-1 zoned Iots. The smaller lot size in and of itself creates practical <br />difiiculties in maintaining a typical hamEe. It was not the City's inient in approving this <br />subdivision to limit the size of a house that could be built. <br />b. The literal interpretation of the p�ovisions of this Title would dep�YVe the applzcant of <br />rights comrnonly enjoyed by othe� properties in the same district unde�� the terrns of this <br />Tit`le. <br />Porches and oiher living space additions are a common feature in this district and serve as <br />a physical improvement to properties. Other properties in this district typically are able io <br />make these types of improvements without ihe need for variances. However, because the <br />subject praperty is substandard, it would be unreasonable to assume that the same size <br />house could be built and expanded upon without a comparable reduction in the setback <br />requiremenfis. <br />c. T7�c�t the special conditions oY circun�stances do not result fYOm the actions of the <br />applicctnt. <br />The variance request is the result of two faetors over which the applicants had no control. <br />The house was constructed on ihe substandard iot in s�ich a way that wasted five feet of <br />space atongside the garage. The side-yard setback for garages attached to principal <br />structures is five feet, yet the garage is set back ten feet. Had the house been consti-ucfied <br />so as to take advantage of this additional five feet alongside the garage, a variance would <br />