4. BASR 08-14-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: V-U7-OG Front Yard setback Page 3 Anderson, Robert and Heidi 4. The literal abt~lication of the t~ro~nsion.r of thi r ordinance would derive the betitioner o~ rights en~oyed by other broberties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance The ordinance requires covered parking for at least one car. While garage parking is not a right, per se, the fact that the ordinance requires it supports the argument that the garage is an expectation in the neighborhood and the Cin•. ~. The variance evil! not he iniurious to or adversely a~fect the health salty or we~are of the residents o~the cit7~ or the neighborhood where the ~ro~er71~ i.r located and will be in keebing with r~irit and intent of the ordinance The views of this neighborhood. are primarily directed toward the adjacent river to the south. While their will be ~-isual impact on the street, the focus is on the south. Analysis In the review of this or any variance request, it is important to consider the goal of the comprehensive plan, intent of the ordinance, and the existing pattern of development. The Comprehensive plan identifies the area as urban residential: The land use is consistent with that designation, as well as the defined zoning district In theory>, the lot establishes a minimum, b~~ right, use for the propert<~ (the house). However, the ordinance further requires certain conditions, including the need to house a car on the propert<-. This requirement imposes addition requirements, adding to the argument for criteria 3,: applicants own actions. In this case, staff believes that the pattern of development lends itself to a successful argument of uniqueness: the street, developed toward the river, creates a neighborhood and st<Jle unique from other areas of the communit<~. Recommendation R tfullv Su ~ d Jeremy Ba ar Planning Manager Action Motion be Second b~~ Vote Follow Up S:\PI~ANNING\Case Files\\'anance\V 07-06 Anderson\Staff report to PC 8-14.doc