08-17-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Miller Wright Report August 17, 2005 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. A reduced setback would bring the PAK Building parking area and drive aisle closer to adjoining property owners side and rear lot lines. While not likely to be a detriment to any adjoining property, the question would remain as to whether the variance would be inconsistent with the intent of the Code. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. None of these risks or adverse effects would be likely as a result of the variance request. Criteria Summary Staff is unsure as to whether or not there is sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant approval of this variance request. While Staff does agree that there are practical difficulties associated with this property (minimal elevation change) which may cause problems with the drainage of the site, it has not been demonstrated that the reduced setback will actually help resolve the situation. Recommendation: Open the public hearing and consider the testimony of staff, residents and the applicants. If the Commission believes all of the criteria have been satisfied and an approval is in order, staff will bring to your next meeting a resolution of approval. If the Commission feels the request does NOT satisfy the hardship criteria, staff would bring to your next meeting a resolution of denial. If the Commission should need additional information before action can be considered, staff will arrange to have such additional information prepared and submitted at your next meeting for your review. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director