Laserfiche WebLink
September 18, 2012 <br />Page 3 <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted <br />by the zoning code; <br />The property owner wishes to construct the shed to store equipment such as a lawn <br />mower, snow blower, and outdoor lawn furniture, which is currently stored in the existing <br />garage. The Applicants wish to relocate the equipment in order to have room in the <br />garage for their car. Most properties within the City would have an opportunity to have a <br />storage shed in addition to a garage on their property. Having a shed to store such <br />equipment is a reasonable use. Criteria 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 home was constructed at a time when present rules regarding setbacks were <br />not in existence. The home does not meet the required rear yard setback and does not <br />provide sufficient space to locate the proposed shed. If the home were oriented with the <br />front towards 27th Avenue rather than Stinson Boulevard, the Applicants would not need <br />a variance for this project. The rear yard is the only place the Code allows for the shed; <br />however, it is not the Applicants' fault that there is not sufficient room in the rear yard to <br />accommodate an accessory structure. Criteria met. <br />c. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and <br />The proposed shed will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Applicant is <br />proposing to construct the shed in a manner that is consistent with the principal structure <br />and existing garage. The proposed use remains a single family home in a single family <br />neighborhood. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will not be changed. <br />Criteria met. <br />d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. <br />'file request and the associated practical difficulties are not soley based on economic <br />considerations. There are no options to construct the shed in the rear yard — some other <br />location must be considered. Criteria met. <br />3. The variance, ifgranted, 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 as it is today. The <br />comprehensive plan guides this area for single family use and adding the shed will not alter that <br />use. Criteria 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. "rhe zoning code is established to: <br />a. Protect the use districts; <br />The proposal would not change the use of the property or create a disruption to the single <br />family use district. The current use as a single-family home is consistent with the City <br />Code. Criteria met. <br />13 <br />