Laserfiche WebLink
Longview Estates Variance Appeal Report <br />August 9, 2010 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not <br />apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size <br />or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property <br />since the effective date hereof have had no control. <br /> <br />The property known as Longview Estates is a 7.14-acre parcel located entirely in a <br />wetland district, which could be considered a unique circumstance. The property <br />proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller <br />Addition. Even so, sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road <br />construction in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. It can <br />be argued that to not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the <br />applicant and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. <br />The plat was approved and the utilities installed before the City’s adoption of the more <br />restrictive wetland zoning regulations in 1992. <br /> <br />b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of <br />rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of <br />this Title. <br /> <br />If this property were not located in a wetland district, the applicant would be able to <br />develop it into more lots. The applicant is at a disadvantage to subdivide the property as <br />other landowners might because the property is entirely in a wetland district and subject <br />to additional regulations. However, other property owners within wetland zoning districts <br />would face similar requirements. <br /> <br />c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long <br />thereafter. The utilities were presumably installed with the expectation of future <br />development. While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints of the <br />site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and <br />the wetlands ordinance of 1992.) <br /> <br />d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in <br />the same district. <br /> <br />The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing a <br />development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would <br />not confer a special privilege denied to other property owners. The city would require the <br />owner or developers to meet all other city platting requirements for this site.