2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

�etb�ck F��pc�r� � i�1 �.ot'�g l��ke Ro�a �,pri1 �; 2fl03 ��g� 3 a. Excepfional or extraordinary circumst�nces apply to fhe property which do not apply generally to oiher prope�ties in the same zone or vicinity and resuli from !ot size or shape, topography orofher circumstances over which fhe owners of the property since the e�feciive date hereof have had no confrol. The proper#y is zoned R-i and is currentiy beir�g improved with a new, 4wo-sfary single-family dwelling. The fot is nofi irregularly shaped and af 22,000 square feet, is mare than double the siz� of a standard fot. The sole cause of the variance request, as it is well documented herein, is due to a Ciiy oversight. The Commur�ity Devefopment Departrr�ent failed to "flag" �he setback encroachment and issued the permit in error. The developer began construction in accordance with fhe City's approval and it was nafi �tnfiil fl�arch 4, 2003, that he becarr�e aware of ar�y probfems. b. The literal ingerpretatior� of fhe provisions of this Tifle would deprive fhe applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properfies in the same disirict under the germs ofihis Tifle. . Whi(e fhe literal interpretation af the provisions of the �oning Code would nof deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, to apply fihe provisions after-the-fact would c�rfainly deprive the applicant a right he was granted by virfiue of an approved buildir�g permif. If should be noted however that mistakes and oversiqhts do occur and that when discovered buiiders are required io correct the misfakes, even if the mistakes '; are not their own. The qu�s#ion, then, is, which is preferable—preserving the intent of a - �niform building setback and requiring the applicanf to tear down walls, redraft plans and pour new footings, all af considera�fe cost, or to grant a variance because of the Ci#y's error. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from fhe actions ot`fhe applicanf. The special conditions do not result from the acfiions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requesfed would not conferan the applicant any special privilege fhat fs denied by fhis Title to owners of other lands, strucfures or buildings in the same disgricf. Granting the variance would confer upon ihe property ow�er a special privilege thaf would be denied other property owners. Nowever, one could consider the investment already made by the applicant a mitigating factor. e. That the variance requested is fhe minimum varrance which would allevia% fhe hardship. Economic conditions alone shall noi be cansidered a hardship. Leaving the structure "as is" cerfainly could be considered �he minimum variance which would alleviaie fhe hardship. The cost of removing ane foot of the garage, k�l tilES C�S�, would essenfially be the sarne as removing 11 feet.