4.1. BASR 10-26-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case No.V 04-07 October 26,2004 Page 2 • garage. The applicant has received approval from the City Council to split the lot into two parcels,which meet the minimum lot area requirements for the district;however, one lot requires a lot width variance of 3 feet. Analysis Prior to granting a variance to the literal provisions of Chapter 30—Land Development Regulations, the Board of Adjustments must consider the following criteria: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. 2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the properly and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. S. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is located and will be in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance. • Lot Width Variance The applicant is requesting a lot width variance of 3 feet. Lot width is measured at the front setback line -in this case,30 feet. This lot does not have 160 feet at its front setback line. Therefore, a division of the lot by the applicant results in one lot that meets the lot width requirement and a second,which falls short of the minimum requirements. Both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement for the R1c Zoning District. Staff finds that granting a lot width variance would be appropriate, as the configuration of the original lot is not within the applicant's control. Building Setback Variance The applicant desires to construct a zero lot line twinhome-style structure on the lot. Each portion of the dwelling would be owner-occupied;therefore,the applicant is requesting a building setback to zero feet on one side of the dwelling. The units would have side-loaded garages and in the applicant's opinion,would improve the overall neighborhood. Each lot is of adequate size to provide space for individual dwelling units without granting a setback variance. In addition, staff believes that custom-designed homes could better fit the topography and vegetation on the site,as opposed to a pre-designed twinhome design transplanted from another community. The applicant has control over the design of the building he desires to place on the site, and could places buildings on the lots that meet the setback requirements. Staff therefore would recommend the Board of Adjustments deny the • request for a zero setback to allow construction of a twinhome on the two lots. S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\V 04-07 Plaisted\10 26 04 ba memo.doc