01-26-95 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing

Browse Search

.. • + Staff Report Page 3 r1 L J Strict enforcement of ordinance intent would, in practical terms, require the existing slab to be removed and replaced in order to accommodate a new home. Based on the factors discussed above, strict enforcement of ordinance intent and requirements would, in this case appear to be somewhat unreasonable. The next condition to be considered is that of special privilege. This property is somewhat unusual in its configuration and situation. There are a very limited number of instances in which similar circumstances might exist. Staff would also point out that the Board has previously ~ granted relief (most recently Glen Meadows, Section VI; Variance V94-001) to front setback requirements for certain cul-de-sac lots. Although the circumstances and degree of setback are somewhat different in regards to this case, granting the appeal would be consistent in principle. Based on these factors; the limited number of similarly situated lots and previous Board determinations, granting this appeal would not grant special privilege. It would maintain a standard that, when circumstances warrant, could be applied by the Board to any future request. The final condition to be considered is the requirement to preserve the best interest of the community as well as the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The intent and purpose behind zoning setback requirements is to provide an attractive street scape, to provide adequate light, air and ventilation, to provide adequate recreational areas, to provide adequate fire separation between structures and to provide adequate space for off-street parking and vehicle maneuvering. As situated, a home constructed on this slab would be able to satisfy all of these goals. Development, under these circumstances would not be contrary to the best public interest. CONCLUSION: Strict interpretation and enforcement of zoning ordinance requirements as they apply to this request would be unreasonable. Granting the appeal would not convey special privilege. Granting the appeal would not be contrary to the best public interest nor, would it violate the spirit or intent of the Zoning ~ Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan.