Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Young Variance <br />June 15, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights <br />commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. <br /> <br />No fence greater than four (4) feet in height can be located in any front yard area within <br />the City. The applicants, owning a corner lot, are at a disadvantage to improve the <br />property as other homeowners might because the property has two (2) front yards. This <br />property is on a busy roadway across the street from Commercial and industrials uses <br />which is another unique factor to consider. <br /> <br />c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />The applicants cannot control the fact that their property is a corner lot with two front <br />setbacks. They only seek to replace what is currently present. <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 the <br />same district. <br /> <br />Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in <br />that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. In <br />addition, every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the <br />function and livability of their property. Finally, similar variances have been approved <br />for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots. <br /> <br />e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. <br />Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. <br /> <br />The applicants have a nicely landscaped backyard protected by the privacy fence. To <br />locate the fence any closer to the home would result in lost backyard area to which the <br />applicants have been historically accustomed to using. <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 />Approval of the variance in this case would not be materially detrimental to the Code or <br />to other property in the area. Sight lines at the intersection would not be impacted. <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 />The requested variance would not cause any adverse effects. <br /> <br />Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance <br />does satisfy the hardship and practical difficulty threshold. <br /> <br />