PL PACKET 03262018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 20, 2018 Page 2 Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R‐1 Single‐Family District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (G) requires a rear yard setback of 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet. The applicant requests a variance to encroach 17.5 feet to result in a rear yard depth of 7.5” feet. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states that “An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code, or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33”. 3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include: 1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. The application for a variance to the rear yard setback is eligible subject matter for variance criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met. 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; The property owners propose to use the property in a way that is reasonable. However, the proposed deck does not change the property owners reasonable use of their property without a deck of this construction, a patio constructed at grade does not require the variance process. Due to the requirement of this lot for two front yard setbacks, the request to construct a small porch on the rear of the house is reasonable. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The plight of the property owner is due to the placement, construction proposed, and overall square footage of the proposed deck design. The lot is platted and home placement on the lot is relative to others in the general area. Criterion not met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicants are not proposing any new use or density, similar sunroom additions do exist in the neighborhood particularly, the property to the north with similar setbacks has constructed a similar sunroom/porch Criterion met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Granting the variance does not effect economic considerations, although it will increase the resale value of the home thus increasing surrounding land values. The proposed deck addition would make the house more appealing to potential buyers in the future. It is the type of construction and the space that is designed that creates the practical difficulty, not economic considerations alone. Criterion met. 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, single‐family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single‐family use and the expansion of the deck will not alter that land use. Criterio met.