Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF ORIGINATOR <br />DATE <br />TOPIC 96-32-V, Kim & John Sullivan, 7132 <br />Whippoorwill, Variance <br />AGENDA ITEM V D <br />Mary Kay Wyland <br />September 6, 1996 <br />................... <br />;CKGRO <br />Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan are requesting an "after the fact" variance <br />to allow an accessory building to be located 1.6' from the street <br />side property line. The Ordinance requires a setback of 30' on a <br />corner lot, therefore, the variance requested is for 28.4'. The <br />Sullivans have included a detailed summary of their variance <br />request and reasons they believe approval should be granted. As <br />indicated in their summary, they believe some misinformation was <br />received resulting in the present location of the structure. <br />Although this is a very unfortunate situation, allowing the <br />structure to be located 1.6' from the side property line could be <br />setting a dangerous precedent. <br />Staff has met with the Sullivan's and <br />location for the accessory building as <br />survey. However, the Sullivan's would <br />structure in the rear yard, preferably in <br />The Findings of Fact to consider in <br />application include the following: <br />suggested an alternate <br />shown on the attached <br />prefer to locate the <br />its present location. <br />review of a Variance <br />A. That the property in question cannot be put to a <br />reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. The accessory building could be <br />located within the required setback as indicated on the <br />attached site plan. However, the applicant does not <br />believe this is the best location for the building. <br />B. That the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to his property not created by the <br />land owner. There are unique characteristics to this <br />property as a result of the shape of the lot, the <br />drainage easements required according to the plat, and <br />the corner lot status. <br />C. That the hardship is not due to economic <br />considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance. There <br />are specific hardships to the land in this case, in <br />addition to the economic hardship in having to relocate <br />the building. <br />D. That granting the variance requested will not confer <br />on the applicant any special privilege that would be <br />denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. Staff would not <br />recommend approval to allow the building to be located 1 <br />