Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

building. The variance application submittal did not address this standard and thus, this would need to be verified when the Building Permit Application is submitted, should the variance request be approved. Finally, there also appears to be sufficient space in the rear of the Subject Property, similar to the Applicant's existing detached accessory building, that would also eliminate the need for a variance. The Applicant has stated that the intent of moving the structure slightly forward is to create sufficient space between the existing structure and the proposed detached structure. Staff is open to re-evaluating the request if the Applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that other potential locations in the rear yard are not reasonable alternatives, an important component of processing any Variance per State Statute. When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors: 1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner? 2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner? 3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Is the Property Owner proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner? While a detached accessory structure itself is a reasonable and common occurrence on a residential parcel, the proposed location does not seem reasonable as there appears to be alternative locations where the structured could be sited to eliminate the need for a variance. Also, there do not appear to be any unique physical characteristics of the Subject Property that would warrant siting the building slightly forward of the principal building, with the exception of perhaps the orientation of the side property line. Is the plight/concern of the Owner due to circumstances unique to the Property not caused by the Property Owner? The Applicant is the original owner of the property, and chose the current location of existing structures. If granted, will the Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? In reviewing the neighborhood, there are other detached accessory buildings, but they are generally located in the rear yards of properties and thus, it could be argued that the proposed location of the detached accessory building would be inconsistent with the surrounding area. Staff has received written comments from the neighbors directly south of the Subject Property opposing the request. Their primary concern is that there appears to be alternative locations to locate the detached accessory building that would not require a variance. This commenter notes that they feel that this Variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Their comments are attached. As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation. If the variance were approved, the Applicant has stated that their intention is to get the footings and foundation in yet this year and then complete the project in 2016. Alternatives Alternative #1: Approve Resolutions #15-10-257 and #15-10-258 denying the request for a variance. Based on the submitted information and review of the Subject Property and property file, the request does not appear to satisfy the State Statute three -factor test for practical difficulties. It appears that the building shape and/or location could be modified to eliminate the need for a variance. Alternative #2: Approve Resolutions #15-10-257 and #15-10-258 granting a variance to allow a detached accessory building to be located nearer the front property line than the principal building on a property less than two (2) acres in size. There do not appear to be any unique physical characteristics on the Subject Property that would prohibit the building from being sited in a location that would not require a variance.