07-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L. •04.J03J Jufy 19. 2004 Par 3 of 4 in 2002 the ipplicant applied for and received approval to renew* those variances until October 28. 2003. This renewal is set to expire on October 28. 2004. The applicant is requesting a third extension to 2005. The applicant applied for a building permit in 1992 to allow construction of the existing detached accessor)* building. That permit was granted and has remained open for the past 12 years. This is the accessory building that the applicant is requesting variances for. The applicant has worked on this building on and off since 1992. The applicant still hasn't finished construction. All pre\*ious approvals supulalcd completion of this 1992 building permit prior to issuance of a permit to move the existing residence. Accessory Buikiinf Variances Renewal Staff finds that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood to allow this variance request to be renewed for a third time. Suff also questions whether the hardships found in 2001 meet the current goals of the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant has made little progress towards completion of the detached accessory building and has not indicated any time frame by which it would be completed. Staff docs not see any logic in tenewing variances granting legal rights to a building which hasn't finished construction .since its original building permit in 1992 Lot Area Variance Renewal In order for the applicant to relocate the e.xisting residence, a lot area variance must he granted. As of May 29, 2004 the City is able to administratively approve this variance based on compliance with specified conditions. This is a change from the originally approved resolution and the approved renewal resolutions. Staff does not object to approval of this variance administratively; however the following conditions must be met; • Wetland delineation must be conducted to ensure the proposed house pad and primary and alternate septic sites meet all setback requirements. • In accordance with Section 78-72. a covenant must be executed protecting the primary and alternate septic sites from future development • Compliance with all other setback and accessory structure requirements Should the applicant wish to go forth with relocation of the existing residence, the lot area variance could be administratively approved subject to the applicant meeting the above list of standards. Because of the newly implemented administrative approval ordinance staff would recommend that the original request, which included the lot area variance, be denied in its entirety noting that the applicant now has the administrative approval option. Neighbor Complaint Attached as E.xhibit F is a complaint from an adjacent neighbor regarding the condition of the site. This complaint was received in October of 2002, however not specifically addressed within the renew*al resolution. Staff feels this neighbor’s comments specifically address one concern the City has with renewal of this variance, i.e. the lack of accessory building completion. As a separate issue, staff w*ill follow up on the junk