Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Panhandle Lot Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses for flexibility on panhandle lot; commission voices concern about precedent
Summary
A resident seeking to place a new home on a panhandle lot described plans to alter lot layout and requested commission consideration; commissioners voiced concerns about consistency, frontage requirements and creating variances that could set precedents.
A Kamas resident, Casey Chesman, urged the commission to consider options to allow construction of a house on a long-vacant panhandle lot near their family’s property and described alternatives to avoid creating a nonconforming lot.
“ My name is Casey Chesman,” Casey told the commission and described the lot as vacant for more than 20 years and previously used for cattle. Casey said the family wants to build a house similar in footprint to a neighboring panhandle house, move it closer to the road and remove two garages to create a driveway, and that emergency vehicle access should remain available.
Commission members and staff reviewed prior policy: panhandle lots had been restricted in past code updates, and commissioners emphasized consistency. Several members warned that granting exceptions could lead to multiple similar requests. Commissioners reiterated a 100-foot frontage requirement for new lots and noted that many panhandle lots close to existing houses cannot meet that frontage without creating a new road or subdividing to provide legal frontage.
Participants discussed alternatives Casey raised, including: (1) reconfiguring the property lines to create a more rectangular lot instead of a panhandle; (2) constructing an accessory dwelling unit connected to the parents’ house by a breezeway so the new unit would be treated as attached, which staff said is a permissible approach if it meets attachment and distance rules; and (3) pursuing a variance, though staff and commissioners cautioned that variances require a showing of unreasonable hardship and are not guaranteed.
Commissioners reviewed past examples of panhandle lots where homes had been built and noted that some existing panhandle houses were placed years ago under different rules; those grandfathered instances do not necessarily create a right for new construction under current code. A staff member and commissioners urged Casey to consider lot-line reconfiguration or an attached accessory unit as practical routes and said the city would not waive frontage requirements absent a formal variance or code amendment.
No variance or formal approval was granted at the meeting. Staff and the resident agreed to continue exploring options, including pursuing a variance or redesigning the lot to meet frontage rules.
