Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Balk Variance Report <br />May 3, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other <br />property in the same zone. <br /> <br />Granting the two-foot variance to allow the RV to be parked inside the garage would <br />not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. <br /> <br />g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger <br />of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within <br />the neighborhood. <br /> <br />While the Balks’ garage would be taller than an average garage, the living space <br />that would be constructed would be a full two stories and would stand six feet above <br />the peak of the garage. The garage would be attached to the house. The proposed <br />variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. <br /> <br />Public Notice <br /> <br />The City Code requires that a public hearing be held regarding variances. Staff sent notices <br />to properties within 350 feet of the subject property and published the notice in the Bulletin <br />Newspaper. Other than a phone call from the neighbor immediately to the south who <br />expressed some concern about the size of the building, no comments or feedback have <br />been received. <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to increase the height of their proposed <br />garage from the maximum allowed 15 feet to 17 feet to allow for the parking of a recreational <br />vehicle inside the garage. It would seem apparent after reviewing the hardship criteria that <br />the request has some merit. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and take testimony <br />from the applicants, neighbors and residents and staff. Staff believes that the variance <br />request minimally satisfies the hardship criteria however the determination is admittedly a <br />subjective one. The Planning Commission will need to consider all of the issues and facts <br />regarding the request. If viewed positively, the request may be approved by adoption of <br />Resolution 831-06. If the Commission does not believe the hardship criteria are satisfied, a <br />resolution of denial would need to be drafted with findings of fact identified in support of the <br />denial. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br />_____________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director