My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 01082019
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2019
>
CC PACKET 01082019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2019 2:14:32 PM
Creation date
1/3/2019 2:13:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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
January 8, 2019 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />The application for variances to the rear yard setback is an eligible subject matter for variance <br />criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met <br />for the accessory building and for the swimming pool/mechanical equipment. <br /> <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 />Accessory Building: The applicant is proposing to add a 150 square foot accessory <br />building to the rear yard. There has been conformance with the setback requirement <br />since adopted and there is not sufficient practical difficulty presented with this <br />application. The request is not reasonable. Criterion not met. <br />Swimming Pool with support mechanical equipment: The applicant is proposing to add <br />a 963 square foot pool with concrete deck and a 28 square foot concrete pad for pool <br />mechanical equipment in the rear yard. There are two other swimming pools in rear <br />yards along the lake. Both were approved prior to establishment of the R‐1A lakeshore <br />zoning designation. Criterion not 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 />Accessory Building. The applicant claims that the topography of the property creates a <br />safety issue in their reasonable enjoyment of the lake. Criterion met. <br />Swimming Pool. A reasonable need for a swimming pool in the setback has not been <br />demonstrated. Criterion not met. <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and <br />The lakeshore zoning district was adopted in 1991 and set express limitations on <br />swimming pools and the placement of accessory buildings. The zoning designation sets <br />the standard for the essential character for this area of the City. Criterion not met for <br />the accessory building or for the swimming pool/mechanical equipment. <br />d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. <br />Accessory Building. The applicant’s request is not related to any financial considerations <br />and granting the variance would not relieve the applicant of any financial hardship. <br />Criterion met. <br />Swimming Pool. The applicant’s request is not related to any financial considerations <br />and granting the variance would not relieve the applicant of any financial hardship. <br />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 />low‐density residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area detached housing units and <br />granting this variance request will not alter that land use. Criterion met for the accessory <br />building and for the swimming pool/mechanical equipment. <br /> <br /> <br />4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning <br />code. <br />65
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.