Open public hearing, receive comments, close public hearing.

It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the same night as its public hearing.

Gene and Shelby Splinter 129 Surrey Trail So. and Dan Moulin, 135 Surrey Trail So., wish to subdivide their properties by preliminary plat to adjust a shared property line so that the Splinters may acquire a 2,927 sq. ft. triangle of property behind their property from Dan Moulin.  In addition, Gene Splinter requests two variances that would allow him to construct a 744 sq. ft. detached garage 9' from the north property line and 5' from the south property line (a 1.0' and 5.0' variance respectively). 

Subdivision by Preliminary Plat:  The shared property line is extended so that the Splinters are able to acquire a 2,927 sq. ft. triangle from Dan Moulin.  The elevation of the site drops off dramatically from the main yard area of the lot to the rear lot line.  The Splinters wish to take advantage of the 8' change in elevation to construct the garage behind the hill.  Placing the detached garage below the hill will help to make it less visible from the street.

Variances:  Two variances are requested. 

1. A variance to reduce the north side yard setback from 10' to 9' (1.0' variance).
2. A variance to reduce the south side yard setback from 10' to 5' (5.0' variance).

The petitioner states he selected the site to minimize tree loss on the site.  The petitioner is also striving to reduce the amount of grading required, in view of the fact that disturbing existing grades will impact adjacent mature trees.

When the City reviews requests for variances, it must determine whether there are practical difficulties present that prevent the applicant from complying with the requirements of the zoning code. 

Definition of “Practical difficulties”:

• The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning provisions of the code;
• The plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant; and
• The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
• Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.

The City Code contains the following standards to evaluate a variance request:

1. Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity in which the land is located;
2. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter;
3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner/applicant;
4. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the zoning provisions of this Code; and
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.

The petitioner has a couple of alternatives to avoid the need for the variance.  The petitioner could reduce the depth of the garage from 26' to 20' or reconfigure the floor plan.  A second alterative would be to locate the garage in a different spot on the property.  The petitioner is concerned that a different location would require substantially more grading and tree removal and would be more visible from the street.  The petitioner likes the site selected because he can "tuck" the garage behind the hill.  One last alternative to consider would be to revise the location of the newly created lot line to accommodate the size of the new garage.