My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
1998 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2018 10:25:19 AM
Creation date
2/22/2012 8:14:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
882
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
White Variance <br />Planning Case No. 533 -98 <br />September 2, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />The allowed setback for garages within the City is five feet, and many garages are <br />constructed at this setback. Were any property owner to apply for a building permit to <br />build a sidewalk within that five -foot area, they would be denied the permit if the sidewalk <br />encroached closer than two feet to the property line. <br />e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. <br />Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. <br />Given that the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk, and the fence (presumably) is not <br />on the property line, the variance requested is minimal -- probably one foot to one and a <br />half feet. However, should the setback be enforced, there is no hardship to having a three - <br />foot wide sidewalk. <br />f The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other <br />property in the same zone. <br />The basis for this Code provision is to promote a separation between properties. Allowing <br />sidewalk within inches of a neighboring property does not fit with the intent of the Code. <br />g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the <br />danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property <br />values within the neighborhood. <br />Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of <br />light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the <br />danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would be no impact to property <br />values. <br />According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the <br />granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship does not exist in this <br />situation. If denied, the applicant can still have a walkway, albeit three feet instead of four. Or, if <br />the applicant would so choose, the area could be leveled with landscape timbers or railroad ties to <br />access the full width between the garage and property line, and install gravel without necessitating <br />a building permit or variance. <br />A variance should not he granted simply because the work has already been completed <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.