Agenda - Council - 07/23/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-10- Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Board Members Kociscak, Reeves, and Watson. Voting No: None, Absent: Board Members Brauer, Johnson, and Sweet. Board Member Brauer arrived at 7:06 p.m. BOARD BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS · Case #1: Request for a Variance to Minimum Lot Size; Case of~;~'bert &Kim Principal Planner rrudgeon explained that Bob Longfield resides ~!~'0-a~(~cel at 5751 177' Avenue N.W. The applicant originally requested a va~ian~;' to the ~ 0 density restriction and minimum lot size of 10 acres. Under the new-:zomng ordinance th~!}~!l take effect on July 11, 2002, Mr. Longfield's land will no longer;~stricted by the 4 in ity restriction. Therefore, the variance will only be needed t~9. inimu~,~ size of 2.5 acr~}~'!~e applicant is proposing to subdivide his lot to create a .06 acr~i~ii:}~d keep a 7.94 acre lot for his homestead. As the Board of Adjustment knows, ~der to ~variances, there must be a determination that there is some physical uniqueness ~.'! roperty that is causing the applicant a hardship and a reasonable use of.~e property. Th~::~._hlcant states that there are two reasons why the variance to lot size is, ;-th~ location ~?.exi!,ting house makes it difficult to create a 2.5 acre lot; and that on~ e.ofthe ab~if~ant s land was dedicated as right-of-way as part of the Echo Ridge E~es pla'~'~?~l~fle'in~ 199~}~¢~Staff has looked at the parcel and has determined that while it may ~aiffic~;i;:~:"-i~ ~.~*possible to create a 2.5 acre lot. A lot could be created~-~puld be 2.'~C~!:Ji~ size an~neet all applicable setbacks. However, the lot would,b¢~:~i~1:~:.shaped. '~A~i~i~tionally, it is Staff's opinion that the fact that: the applicant doesn~i~{;e en°~area for ~:.~per lot size because he dedicated right-of- way as part of the Eel~0~:;i~idge Est~¢is a self-c~d hardship. Under Section 9.03.05 Subd. 2(b)(2)(c) a varian~?~ot be ~!~i~_s_p~.?~i)~onditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship resuit~f~iam the':i~>67f: ant. On June 6, 2002, the Board was also informed that as part of-'~!Sfil~d.i'-7~ision request, ~r. Longfield would be creating a lot that would be defic~ent'~7~,...'t~.w~dth :: a/ ould require another variance. The Board of Adjustment inst ..ru~..~e~.~';:'S~h-~'~-dJ.~;;appli'~:'i~tp, work on finding an acceptable solution and eliminate the n~9~'.~i~variances. [~{~'.discu~j~?'_~e matter with Mr. Longfield, staff was able to determine t~t~eir initial measU~bnt of ~ width was in error. City Ordinances require lot width m'd~r, ed at the front set~k line. Staff had measured the lot width at the property line. By mea~ ~t the front se~-~k~ _ line (40'), Mr. Longfield exceeds the 200 foot lot width and will not need~t~;:~ariance. 8t~ also discussed with Mr. Longfield that possibility of making the deficient l°~'lS~gger. :/;!~)ns were explored, but in the end, Mr. Long field asked that his original request be co~l'-.d~f/~? Since it is still staff's belief that there are possibilities to create a lot that meets the minimtim~ lot size requirement, staff recommends that the variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 2.5 acres submitted by Robert Longfield be denied for the following reasons: Board of Adjustment/July 11, 2002 Page 2 of 6