10-17-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#16-3870 , October 17,2016 Page 4 of 4 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed improvement for bedrooms and a bathroom are reasonable in nature, and placement elsewhere on the lot does not avoid a variance. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There is no evidence to suggest the variance, if granted,would negatively impact the intent of the zoning ordinances. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The owner has been in the home for 9 years, suggesting that the applicant has attempted to make do with the home in its current state, and did not enter into the need for a variance frivolously or out of convenience. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Analysis The proposed improvement requires a 9 foot reduction in the front yard setback, 41.7 feet of separation between the house and the street. With this reduction, the large yards envisioned by the ordinance and comprehensive plan are maintained and preserved. Looking at the neighborhood, most of the homes are similar sized,and setback from Crestview a shorter distance than proposed by the applicant. Further, alternative locations for the expansion would require other variances, which may result in greater impact to adjacent properties, or require an upward addition, which may have a greater massing impact on the neighborhood over what is proposed. Public Comments To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?