09/11/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • is allowed under City ordinance. If the current non - conforming shed were eliminated from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620 square feet over what is allowed under City ordinance. Construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would require a separate, second driveway with access via 62 "d street. City Code does not preclude construction of such a second driveway. There are, however, easement issues. There is an eighty -five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side of 62 "d Street. The proposed garage does not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the current road right -of -way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements to 62nd Street. Overall, Mr. Poser states that he wants to locate the garage on the northern part of the property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system is located on the southern part of the property and precludes siting there, and 2) there is less traffic on 62" Street. FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Additional accessory building space is possible under City ordinance, although at a smaller size. Two hundred eighty (280) additional square feet is allowed as an addition onto the current non - conforming shed or attached garage; four hundred forty (440) additional square feet is allowed if the existing shed were to be eliminated. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. There are no unique physical circumstances to the property that require accessory building square footage in the number and location proposed. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Hardship has not been demonstrated. In addition, City ordinance does not preclude reasonable use of the property: additional accessory building space is allowed, although not in the size and configuration proposed by the applicant.