My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 05182015
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2015
>
PL PACKET 05182015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 8:42:17 AM
Creation date
12/1/2015 8:33:28 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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).
View images
View plain text
May 11, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (B) <br />Minimum Setback states that "the wall of an accessory building shall not be locate less than five feet <br />from any property line. <br />Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states <br />that "An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code, <br />or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance <br />upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33". <br />3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 <br />Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in <br />determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include: <br />1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. <br />The request for a variance for a setback for a garage is within the scope of this section because a <br />setback is a dimensional standard, and city code allows deviations from setbacks through the <br />variance process. Criterion met. <br />2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted <br />by the zoning code, <br />The property owners propose to increase the size of their garage from an existing one - <br />car garage to a two -car garage. They are not proposing to increase the non -conformity <br />from the rear setback, and are proposing to locate the new garage in its current, but <br />expanded, location. Therefore, the use of the property, as proposed is reasonable. <br />Criterion met. <br />b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the property owner, <br />The existing garage does not meet the setback, which is out of the control of the <br />property owner. However, the property owner is proposing to expand the garage, which <br />is an action by the property owner, which is necessitating the need for the variance. <br />Criterion not met. <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; <br />The existing garage, and the garages on the alley, are set back one foot from the <br />property (see pictures in Exhibit C). Since the garages on the block are set back one foot, <br />and many are two car garages, granting this variance would be in keeping with the <br />character of the neighborhood. Criterion met. <br />d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. <br />The basis for the practical difficulties is that the garage is currently set back one foot <br />from the property line. Also, increasing the size of the size increases the livability of the <br />home and property, which may have a positive impact on the property's value. While <br />economic considerations are a factor, as the value of the home may increase as a result <br />of the new garage, it is not perceived that they are the sole basis of the practical <br />difficulty. Criterion met. <br />3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan. <br />If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, <br />single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the <br />proposed garage will not alter that use. Criterion met. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.