Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A - 322 W Hyman Avenue_Variance Review Criteria Exhibit A –Variance Review Criteria Chapter 26.314, Variance A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Staff Findings: The purpose of the City’s land use code not only protects the public’s health, safety, and welfare, but also identifies a property’s rights which includes reasonable expectations for property owners. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and enforced as uniformly as practicable. However, given that the retaining wall is a long-standing condition, staff finds that the request is reasonable and is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Land Use Code. The new replacement retaining wall will be reconstructed in the same location as the existing retaining wall and it is unreasonable in this case to require a stepped retaining wall as the Land Use Code would normally require. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Findings: Staff finds that the grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the structure. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as dist inguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff Findings: This section highlights a distinct difference between causing an Applicant “unnecessary hardship” in contrast to the creation of a “mere inconvenience”. Staff finds that retaining roughly 6-7’ of dirt, at the property line, is a special condition related to this parcel and not surrounding parcels in the same zone district. It is reasonable that the replacement retaining wall should remain in the same location as the existing retaining wall that is failing. The reconstructed retaining wall also remedies any issues with perpetuating the unprotected fall hazard from above to below as the Building Department will require a railing on top of the wall. Staff finds this criterion met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Findings: Staff finds that should the BOA find that a hardship exists, property specific findings should be made so that special privilege is not conveyed with the grant of a variance. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met.