The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located. If the requested variance does not somehow compensate for a deprived right or privilege as provided in subsection B of this section, the variance would constitute a special privilege.

The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. An example of such circumstances may be that a lot was established in a subdivision of which a portion may be unbuildable because of steep slopes; or, an adjacent property has a nonconforming side yard setback, in which case a fence taller than the allowable height or a setback on another portion of the property may need to be varied to allow the applicant the privacy or buildable space commensurate to that enjoyed by other lot owners in the district.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. For instance, a building proposed to be taller than the allowable height may block views or natural light to adjacent buildings; or increasing the allowable lot coverage may contribute to runoff from storm events. Cumulative impacts shall be considered.

Economic benefit shall not be considered grounds for granting a variance. For example, if the applicant asserts that the variance is necessary to enhance the value of a building for resale value, or increase the city's tax base; this information shall not be used to qualify the variance.

That the hardship asserted by the applicant is not the result of the applicant's or owner's action. For instance, in a case where an addition is made to a building where the applicant did not comply with the required setback, the fact that the addition would have to be demolished shall not be considered a hardship. Another example may be that an applicant ordered a manufactured home that does not meet setbacks or minimum lot size; in which case, the applicant caused the hardship. An exception to this may be in the case that the applicant can provide evidence that the availability of manufactured home sizes is severely limited, or, a protrusion of a particular manufactured home makes a minor penetration of the setback or height area which is a characteristic over which the applicant may have little control.

In addition to the requirements for a completed application listed in Chapter 18.100 OMC, the applicant shall provide a description of how the proposal meets each of the variance criteria listed herein.

Variances are generally exempt from SEPA review; therefore, a SEPA checklist shall not be required unless the application pertains to special circumstances that are not exempt or the application is consolidated with other approvals that are not exempt.

The board of adjustment shall develop and cause the preparation of written findings of fact and conclusions that provide the basis for their decisions on variances that includes their interpretation of how each variance criteria is or is not satisfied by the project proposal or by conditions of the approval, or both.

The basis for decisions on variances shall be filed as records of decisions for variances and shall be considered by the decision-making body in determining whether future variances should be approved. An effort shall be made to be consistent with historical decisions on variances unless it is found that earlier decisions are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of this title, as it presently exists or may hereafter be amended.