Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Mayor and City CouncilN 01-01 <br />February 20, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment Meetinq <br /> <br />At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on January 23rd, no one spoke at the <br />public hearing. The applicant went through the attached letter explaining why he <br />needed the variance. The Board felt that the driveway was attractive but found <br />that he did not meet the 5 criteria needed to grant the variance. The Board was <br />concerned with equal application of the criteria and did not want to use the cost <br />of the house as justification for granting the variance. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The Board of Adjustment and staff recommend that the City Council deny this <br />request for a variance to the maximum driveway width based on the following <br />findings: <br /> <br />1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. <br /> <br />There is no hardship nor are there any special conditions and <br />circumstances which are peculiar to the property and the structure <br />involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands <br />or structure in the same area. <br /> <br />The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not deprive <br />the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district <br />under the terms of this ordinance. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />There are no special conditions and circumstances. The need for this <br />variance is solely a consequence of the petitioner's own action. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />The variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood in that over 1/3 of <br />the front yard width would be paved, which is exactly why the maximum <br />driveway width was adopted. The variance is not in keeping with spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />S:\PLANNING\SCOT'I~V0101CC.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />