pf_03311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.0 STAFF COMMENT & FINDINGS 3.1 Section 1004.01E states: Exception: Ifafter May 21,1959, existing houses on 50% of more of the frontage on any block have a predorninant front yard different from that herein specified, all buildings hereafter erected shall conform to this predominant front yard depth, provided this regulation shall not be interpreted so as to require a front yard of rnore than 40 feet in depth. 3.2 Based on the submitted site plan and conversations with the Conway's, a 14-foot variance is necessary to allow the new garage addition to encroach to a distance 24 feet from the front property line. 3.3 Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. 3.4 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance shall only occur when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 3.5 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 3.6 Findings specific to this request include: A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The Conway's are proposing a number of home updates including conversion of the existing single stall garage into living space (bedroom). With the conversion comes the need to replace the existing garage that currently does not meet their needs (single stall prefer double stall). Conversion of the existing garage into living area creates a situation where by the most suitable location for the new garage is forward of the existing garage due to current access and driveway. Requiring strict compliance with the Code may limit the Conway's from improving their home in a manner consistent with their needs. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The Conway's home was constructed in 1951, prior to the inception of the 1959 Zoning Ordinance. The parcel required a greater setback from the front property line given its location adjacent a County road (Victoria Street). The setbacks on this block are not consistent (36 to 50 feet) and the road is now the responsibility (turn-back) of the City. A standard front yard setback for principal a structure is 30 feet. The existing garage lies eight feet from the side (north) property line, could accommodate a three to five foot addition, but would require the Conway's to redesign their improvement plan. PF3311 RCA (062601) Page 2 of 4