Laserfiche WebLink
The key parameters generally used to determine whether a variance will be granted are as <br />follows: <br />(1) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the ofHcial controls. <br />(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by <br />the landowner <br />(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />From staffs perspective, the development proposal is a good solution with no or minimal <br />negative impacts. However, from staffs perspective, the conditions necessary to meeting this <br />definition of hardship, on which a variance approval would be based, are not present for this <br />development proposal. <br />Staff RccommcBdation <br />The basis of the Planning Commission’s 4*2 recommendation for approval is that this proposal is <br />a good solution that meets the intent of the code. Although the accessory structure proposal does <br />not meet the letter of the code, in that the total square footage of the one accessory structure is <br />greater than 2,000 square feet, it does meet the intent of the code in that the visual impact is <br />similar to an accessory structure of less than 2,000 square feet. <br />Oversized accessory structures are regulated according to a table that allows both a maximum <br />individual accessory structure footprint area, and a maximum allowed total of all accessory <br />structure footprint areas on a property. For this property, the maximum individual accessory <br />structure footprint area is 2,000 square feet. The maximum total of all accessory structure <br />footprint areas is 4,000 square feet. The proposed accessory structure plan is within the 4,000 <br />square foot maximum. The portion of the structure that is above ground is within the 2,000 <br />square foot maximum. <br />Staff concurs with the majority conclusion of the Planning Commission, that the proposed project as <br />designed and when subject to a variety of covenants, will likely have no negative impacts on the <br />neighborhood. Council is asked to review the criteria for variance approval in Sections 78-121 and <br />78-123, to determine whether there are “practical difTicultics or particular hardships” in the vsay of <br />carrying out the strict letter of the code, and whether granting approval will “not adversely affect the <br />purpose and intent of (the zoning code) nor the health or welfare of the public”. A resolution is <br />attached that reflects the majority Planning Commission recommendation, for Council consideration <br />and possible amendment or adoption. <br />If the Council believes the proposal is a good solution, it may want to consider whether the <br />proposal may fit into a category ’ of development proposals that are best dealt w ith through a <br />process other than a variance process. StalT could conduct an analysis of variance applications to <br />identify instances in which a variance was granted or denied when the operative condition of the <br />development proposal was that it was a good solution with no negative impacts, that met the <br />intent of the code. If there is a pattern, or if a type of development proposal is identified that <br />would more appropriately be dealt with through another type of review process, such as a <br />conditional use permit process, the council could consider addressing this in the zoning code. <br />J