CC Min 1989-05-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 6 (continued out of order) 2. Appellants' appealed the decision of the Subdivision Committee to the Commission. On march 21, 1989 the Commission denied the appeal. Timely appeal of the decision of the Commission was filed by Appellants on March 8, 1989. 3. The Subject Property is located in the R -1 (Residential - Single Family) Zoning District (Zon. Ord. S5.1 et. seq.), and is comprised of two purported parcels, one of which fronts on Canyon road and contains approximately 8,240 square feet, while the other "rear lot" is located adjacent to the lot fronting on Canyon road and contains approximately 8,335 square feet. The front lot currrently is improved with an existing single - family residence. The rear lot is unimproved, and has a slope of 15 %. Although purportedly subdivided into two lots, no access has been provided for the rear lot, i.e., it is "land- locked ". The "parcels" are in common ownership. 4. Appellants' minor subdivision proposal would create a panhandle lot with a 20 -foot wide frontage /access strip for the rear lot. After such subdivision, the rear lot would be comprised of approximately 8,398 square feet. 5. The R -1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (Zon. Ord. S5.6); provided, that additional minimum building site area requirements greater than the foregoing are established for sloping sites (id.). 6. The minimum building site area required for the rear lot of the Subject Property, with a 15% slope, is 10,000 square feet (Zon. Ord. S32.2). 7. Building site sizes below the minimum required by the Zon. Ord. may only be allowed pursuant to issuance of a variance to such requirements (Zon. Ord. S43.1 et. seq. ). A variance may only be granted when the applicant therefor establishes that the following circumstances exist: "Section 43.4 ... "a. that because of special circumstances applicable to the Subject Property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of (the Zon. Ord.) would deprive the Subject Property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. "b. That the adjustment authorized by the variance, if granted, shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the Subject Property is located. "c. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the (the Zon. Ord.)" (Zon Ord. S43.4). 8. Here, the Subject Property is not deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the R -1 zone classification because the property has been, and is, improved for residential purposes. MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 5 /15 /89 5/15/89 Page No. 388 Page 7