04-02-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Setback Report 7741 Long Lake Road April 2, 2003 Page 4 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the structure to remain within the setback could be viewed as materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. It is hard to imagine a situation where the Planning Commission would have approved this request had the setback been flagged prior to construction. Staff has not received any feedback from neighbors regarding this request. 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. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above -cited adverse effects. Summary: All of the criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting the variance. Certainly the fact that the applicant was issued a building permit in good faith does support the requirement that the exceptional or extraordinary condition not be caused by the applicant. But does that error necessitate approval of the variance? No. The fact that the City erred in its issuance of the building permit, even given the magnitude of the oversight, does not in itself obligate variance approval. The Planning Commission needs to determine whether the City’s error in itself is sufficient justification to grant the variance. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the builder, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the requested variance with stipulations requiring application of a conditional use permit for the oversized garage and a variance for accessory space beyond the 1,800 square foot maximum. Furthermore, a stipulation should be included which indicates that if the structure is ever damaged or destroyed, the original prevailing setback shall apply to any reconstruction. Resolution “A” is attached for this option. 2. Deny the requested variance and require that 11 feet be removed from the front of the garage to satisfy the prevailing 41-foot setback. If the Commission determines this option is appropriate, the applicants would have the right to appeal the Commission’s decision and such an appeal would be heard by the City Council on April 14, 2003. Resolution “B” is attached for this option.