CC PACKET 08232011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would 26 cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. (City Code 152.245(C)) In this situation, requiring the property owner to move the rebuilt garage to within three feet of the property lines would move the location of the garage further from the alley, which would cause the need to relocate their driveway as well. In addition, moving the location of the rebuilt garage to a conforming site would put the structure's alignment at odds with the other garages along the alley, thereby changing the sight lines of the alley and perhaps making it more difficult for the Wernimonts to maneuver out onto the alley. Since the garage is original to the property, its location was not created by the current owners and is unique to the property. The property was built in 1952, according to the City records and before the City's zoning ordinance was codified. Clearly sighting garages along the alley, close to the side and rear property lines, was commonly done at this time. The setback permit, if granted, would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan in that detached garages are permitted in residential areas and the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Code. Recommendation. Planting Commission recommends approval of the garage setback request as it meets the following criteria as established by the City's Zoning Code: 1. The request is within the scope of Subsection 152.176 (F), Garage Setback Permit. 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning code. §152.176(B) does not allow an accessory building or eave within 3 feet of a property line; b. The plight of the property owner is due to circurastances unique to the property not created by the property owner. The structures on this property were constructed in 1952; the current owners purchased this property in 2008 and are proposing to replace the single car garage with a 528SF double car garage. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The property owners have demonstrated that the siting of the proposed garage will be in essentially the same location as the current structure so as to protect the only tree on the property and to keep the sight lines along the alley the same so as to not affect their ability to use the alley. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the with the City's comprehensive land use plan. The City recognizes that attached and detached garages are appropriate uses in the residential zoning districts. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The City has demonstrated by implementing §152.176(13) that double garages are desirable and beneficial to the community. C:ADocuments and settingsVbarb. s[lei u\Local setlingsVIempoI ary Internet H1csVOLK24A081620II 2609 pall l garage permit St I' I pt.doc08162011 2609 pahl garage permit stf rpt