Laserfiche WebLink
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning <br /> ordinance; <br /> Building a home on achy-approved parcel Pith setbacks that are more compliant than neighboring properties is using the <br /> property in a reasonable manner. <br /> The property is guided for residential uses and the city approved a lot with both a reduced area and lot <br /> width. Building a residential home on the subject parcel is reasonable. <br /> 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of <br /> the petition's own action or inaction; and <br /> The plight of the property is that it received variances for lot si,-e and lot P)idth in 2005,prior to the applicantpurchasing it. <br /> A frontyard setback variance paras anticipated irhen theproperty irasplatted. <br /> The actions on this property happened prior to the applicant purchasing it. <br /> 5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> The character of the locale is one of varying frontyard setbacks and to these variances Pill not alter that character. <br /> If granted, the variance will alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Board of Adjustments <br /> On December 27, 2016, the Board of Adjustments approved the variance as requested with two <br /> conditions. On December 28, 2016, Dolores Kratzke appealed the Board of Adjustments decision. <br /> Staff had recommended the following conditions but the Board of Adjustments only approved <br /> conditions 1 and 3. <br /> 1. No principal structure can be closer than 20 feet to the south property line. <br /> 2. An 8-foot tall privacy fence shall be constructed on the west property line as shown on the exhibit <br /> titled "Fence Location." The actual location may change with final site plan determination. <br /> 3. The variance does not apply to accessory structures. <br /> Staff recommended the fence based on a discussion with an adjacent property owner. Staff has no issue <br /> with that condition being removed. Conditions 1 and 3 were added to clarify that the variance was only <br /> for the principal structure (house) and not accessory structures but recommends these conditions also be <br /> removed. The Action Requested was modified to clarify the variance is only for a principal structure. <br /> Public Hearing <br /> During the public hearing,Dolores Kratzke handed out a 16-page document discussing past variances, <br /> building plans, decks,basements,ground elevations,house placement,impervious surface, and finding of <br /> facts. Mrs. Kratzke does not object to a house being built, she continues to be concerned about how <br /> close it will be to her house. She requested the variance be denied based on her issues and concerns. <br /> The subject parcel was approved as a buildable lot by the City Council in 2005. During that process, a <br /> public hearing was held to discuss the parcel itself. The application before the City Council is for two <br /> setback variances and not for discussions regarding the parcel itself. <br /> Mrs. Kratzke points out that the parcel was approved for a standard size home. The term "standard"is <br /> vague today as it was in 2005 and a"standard" size is unknown. In the past two years, 147 new homes <br /> N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\01-17-2017\Final\7.2 sr.docx <br />