Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memo to Mayor and City CouncilN 99-16 <br />December 20, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The hardship is not caused by special conditions and circumstances which are <br />peculiar to the property. The hardship is unrelated to the property and is <br />caused by a purchasing decision made by the applicant. <br /> <br />The literal application of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of <br />rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district. A drive through of the <br />neighborhood identified one small portable metal storage building. Metal <br />exterior accessory buildings are allowed as long as they are smaller than 120 <br />square feet. There are several other properties in the area that have large <br />accessory structures that do not have metal exteriors. <br /> <br />Any special conditions or circumstances are a consequence of the petitioner's <br />own actions. <br /> <br />The variance could have an adverse aesthetic impact on the adjacent <br />properties in that they would have to look at a metal pole building. On larger <br />lots there is more separation between structures, therefore aesthetic <br />considerations are not as critical. However, wood structures, which are <br />allowed, can also have an adverse impact on a neighborhood depending on <br />how well they are constructed and maintained. <br /> <br />Board of Adiustment Meetinf! <br /> <br />At the November 23rd Board of the Adjustment meeting no one spoke at the <br />public hearing. The applicant explained they needed the proposed building <br />for storage; they also said they were not aware of the restriction regarding <br />metal exterior material until after they purchased the building. The Board <br />found the applicant did not meet the five criteria needed to grant a variance <br />and denied the variance request. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The Board of Adjustment and staff recommend the City Council deny this <br />variance request based on the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. <br />The hardship is strictly economic. According to state statute, economic <br />considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the <br />ordinance. A reasonable use of the property, does exist under the terms <br />of the ordinance. <br /> <br />S: \PLANNING\SCOTT\ V99-16CC.DOC <br />