Agenda - Council - 07/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I REOU~ST TO APPEAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION; I CASE OF TIM AND BRENDA SMITH By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frollk I Background; City Code sgates that any action of the Board of Adjustment may be appealed to the Council if notice of such hn al~peal is received by the Zoning Administrator within 10 days of the final action. I On 23 1! ~91,~']'im and Brenda Smith appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a variance May to the minimUt n s ~tr~et frontage requirements. The request was denied. Rather than arranging with me to make a lbrrn~ 1 appeal to City Council, the Smith's approached City Council during Citizen I Input on May 28, ~1991. Without benefit of a written case in the agenda, Council affirmed the decision of thc Bo~d of Adjustment. At this time, the Smiths are requesting that Council waive the 10 day app)al ~me frame, and review the documented facts of their request for a variance. Recommend/ation: City Staff r~cPm~ends waiving the 10 day appeal time frame and proceeding to review the documentatiOfl~ su~ounding this case. CounCil Action: Moti°n to: Waive}~not ,waive the 10 day appeal time frame relating to Tim and Brenda Smith's request for a~vtariarice based on the lack of documentation available for City Council review and conSideratiOn on May 28, 1991. ObservationS:, City Code as~abli~hes a minimum lot width of 200 feet. Lot width is defined as the width measured' at thg property line abutting the street. Only 66 feet of the Smith parcel abuts the street. As noted in :Mr. Gromberg's memo of May 23, 1991, it appears the subject parcel was created prior to 1979, ~Pnot' to 1979, City Code did require a minimum lot width of 200 feet and the parcel complied' with4. thad requirement when it was created. However, lot width was not defined as that part of the 10t hbUt~ng the street (street frontage) until 1979, and lots not meeting that requirement are not to cOnt~n a[dwelling unit. [ Based on th¢i~ desire to preserve a corridor for the future extension of 171st through the subject property to ac~orr~odate future development between the subject property and Nowthen Blvd. N.W., the Board o~ Adjustment denied the Smith's request for a variance. The alternative given to the Smiths wa~ thlt they plat the property and dedicate right-of-way for the future extension of 171 st. The Bo~d i ,~dicated that in their review of the plat as the Planning and Zoning Commission, they would.be ~ill~ng to waive the requirement that 171st be improved to City standards and allow the Smiths to lcce~s onto that part of 171st that abuts their property. ' ! i In similar cases, the City has granted variances to minimum street frontage. In the most recent case, the vari6nce !required the placement of the home in a location that would not prohibit the future extenSign o~ the adjacent street through the property if and when the property was platted and the street Was extended through the property. The disadvant_age t~o reversing the decision of the Board of Adjustment and not requiting that the property be Pl~tted, is that the City could be forced to condemn street tight-of-way through the Smith property' should development to the west require the extension of 171st. We would also lose the oppo~tun~:y to gain another segment of Trott Brook Trail at this time. However, the Smiths are willing!to locate the dwelling on the property so as not to obstruct the possible future extension: ofl?lst.I I would also propose that the variance agreement obligate the fee title owner of the subject proper? to dedicate the street right-of-way for the extension of 171st at such time as it