My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 11222016
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2016
>
CC PACKET 11222016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2016 7:37:10 AM
Creation date
11/21/2016 7:34:44 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
4) A 33 foot front yard setback variance to allow of setback of 2 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy <br />88; <br />5) A 4 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 6 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88; <br />6) A 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow of setback of 10 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy <br />88. <br /> <br />Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining <br />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 application for these variances to setbacks are eligible subject matter for variance criteria <br />because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. 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 use the property in the current situation. Granting <br />these variance will approve the current situation, with the change in ownership <br />structure from a condo to a fee title. 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 owner is requesting this ownership structure change, however the location of the <br />existing buildings are not in the owner’s control to change. Criterion met. <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and <br />Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, <br />because there is no change proposed to buildings. Criterion met. <br />d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. <br />These variances, in conjunction with the plat, will improve the existing situation to more <br />clearly represent and allow for the current practices on the property. 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 />which is commercial. Criterion met. <br />4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning <br />code. <br />The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and <br />its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and <br />use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development <br />and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in <br />the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by <br />regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land <br />uses. <br />20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.