My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-16-1998
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
09-16-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 7:40:33 AM
Creation date
8/1/2018 7:39:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/16/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 2 <br /> Analysis: <br /> At the last Planning Commission meeting, significant discussion was held regarding the merits of <br /> this case as well as the interpretation of the language in the Code regarding setbacks. Because of <br /> many factors, such as the slope of the land north of the garage, safety considerations and lack of <br /> access elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commission acted to table the request to enable staff to <br /> draft both approval and denial versions of the resolution. <br /> a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply <br /> generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or <br /> shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since <br /> the effective date hereof have had no control. <br /> The factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the <br /> slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that <br /> the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the <br /> backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then <br /> is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the <br /> slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. <br /> • <br /> b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of <br /> rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this <br /> Title. <br /> If the variance request was denied, the applicant would either need to remove the sidewalk <br /> completely from alongside the shed, which would be a hardship given a sidewalk has <br /> existed in this location for more than twenty years, or cut the sidewalk back a foot. In so <br /> doing, a gap would be left between the sidewalk and the chain-link fence which is on the <br /> applicant's property. It was felt that this gap would pose a considerable safety risk due to <br /> the height of the fence and slope of the land. <br /> c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the <br /> applicant. <br /> The slope of the land in this aea is the primary basis for the variance request, a condition <br /> over which the applicant has no control. <br /> • d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br /> privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in <br /> the same district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.