06-13-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 V 'fi VfW'iiaiL' 3. w 4^. .» ' 4. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at a public hearing held on April 18, 2005 and reviewed a revised plan on May 16, 2005. Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval of the requested variances for the revised plan by a vote of 5-1 based on the following findings and hardships: a)The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the proposed new residence. There is no adjacent land available for applicant to acquire to make the property more conforming in area or width. The zoning standards when applied to this property limit the width of the home and attached garage to 50*, which will result in a home that is longer thm it is wide, causing a greater visual impact as viewed from the two adjacent homes than is typical in the immediate neighborhood. Allowing side setbacks of 20’ instead of the required 30 ’ will result in a house that is better proportioned to fit into the neighborhood, as long as the extent of the encroachment of the side yards is limited to primarily the house in the southerly side yard and the gar^e on the northerly side yard. This will not create a situation of increased visual density nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a site plan meeting these goals. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfruv of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keq)ing with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 I