Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

Motion carried. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Members Brauer, Johnson, and Sweet. Board IV[ember Brauer arrived at 7:06 p.m. Voting Yes: Chairperson NL-ct, Board Members Kociscak, Reeves, and Watson. BOARD BUSI2NESS/PUBLIC 1TEARINGS _,.~7~ Case #1: Request for a Variance to Minimum Lot Size; Case of Robert & Kim Longfield Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that Bob Lon~zfield resides on a 10-acre parcel at 5751 177~ Avenue N..W. The applicant originally requested a variance to the 4 in 40 density restriction and minimum lot size of 10 acres. Under the new zoning ordinance that will take effect on July l 1, 2002, Nfl'. Longfield's land will no longer be restricted by the 4 in 40 density restriction. Therefm:e, the variance will only be needed to the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide his lot to create a new 2.06 acre 10t and keep a 7.94 acre lot for his homestead. As the Board of Adjustment knows, in order to grant variances, there must be a determination that there is some physical uniqueness about the property that is causing the applicant a hardship and a reasonable use of the property. The applicant states that there are two reasons why the variance to lot size is needed; the location of the existing house makes it difficult to create a 2.5 acre lot; and that one-half of an acre of the applicant' s land was dedicated as right- of-way as part of the Echo Ridge Estates planing done in 1991. Staff has looked at the parcel and has determined that while it may be difficult, it is not impossible to create a 2.5 acre lot. A lot could be created that would be 2.5 acres in size and meet all applicable setbacks. However, the lot would be irregularly shaped. Additionally, it is Staff' s opinion that the fact that the-applicant doesn't have enough area for a proper lot size because he dedicated right-of-way as part of the Echo Ridge Estates is a self-created hardship. Under Section 9.03.05 Sub& 2(b)(2)(c) a variance cannot be granted if the special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship result from the actions of the applicant. On June 6, 2002, the Board was also informed that as part of the subdivision request, Mr. Longfield would be creating a lot that would be deficient in lot width and would require another variance. The Board of Adjustment instructed staff and the applicant to work on finding an acceptable solution and eliminate the need for variances. Upon discussing the matter with Mr. Longfield, staff was able to determine that their initial measurement of lot width was in error. City Ordinances require lot width measured at the front setback line. Staff had measured the lot width at the property line. By measuring at the front setback line (40'), Mr. Longfield exceeds the 200 foot lot width and will not need a variance. Staff also discussed with Mr. Longfield that possibility of making the deficient lot bigger. Options were explored, but in the end, Mr. Longfield asked that his original request be considered. Since it is still staff's belief that there are possibilities to create a lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement~ staff' recommends that the variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 2.5 acres submitted by Robert Lon~mSeld be denied for the following reasons: 1) The inability to create a parcel that will meet the new code is partially a self-created hardship, due to the fact that the applicant previously dedicated right-of-way as part of the Echo Ridge Estates subdivision. Board of Adjustment/July 11, 2002 Page 2 of 6 63