CC PACKET 10102017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 10, 2017 Page 3 The basis for the practical difficulties is that the resale of the home without a variance to grant the proposed deck addition would make the house less appealing to potential buyers. The addition to the deck is based on the desire of the Applicants to use their backyard in a different manner. It is that type of construction and the space that is designed that creates the practical difficulty. Criterion not met. 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the expansion of the deck will not alter that land use. However, this is a larger deck than can be found in the adjoining properties and neighborhood. Therefore, granting of the variance would not be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criterion not met. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land uses. Given these factors, this application is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and provide adequate access to light and air. Other properties in this location would not be able to construct a deck this close to the property line, nor are there decks this close to the property line on other properties. Criterion not met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt a resolution denying the variance, based on the findings listed therein. 2. Motion to approve (with or without conditions) the variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution which approves the variance. 3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have provided enough information for the City Council to approve or deny the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Supporting Material