Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />#13-93000001 <br />Page 2of 3 <br />Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a <br />allof the following conditions have been met. <br />requirement when the board finds that <br />That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest. <br />That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessaryhardship because of <br />exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or <br />exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. <br />“Unnecessary hardship” shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as <br />distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or <br />caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner’s own <br />actions; and <br />That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. <br />In determining if granting the applicant’s request would be contrary to the public interest, <br />Staff recognizes that the development of the carportmay create a visual obstruction issue <br />withthe adjoining properties. <br />In viewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff points out that the <br />condition, as it exists, was the “…result of the applicant or property owner’s own <br />actions…” contrary to the provisions of Section 106-192. We also find no grounds to <br />justify “…unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape <br />extraordinaryunique <br />topography, or other or exceptional physical situation to the <br />property in question.” This lot represents a typical example of property within <br />subdivisions throughout the City. <br />The average dimension for the width of a car or pickup truck is approximately6’. A <br />10’to12’ wide driveway is common in the area and easily accommodates parking for a <br />car or pickup truck. If the applicant maintains the required side yard setback of 5feet,the <br />proposed carport will be13.5’ wide and will adequately accommodate the vehicle’s <br />width. <br />Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant’s request to encroach 2’ into the <br />required side yard setback would appear to be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance, <br />by allowing carport within3’setback from the side property lineis not justified. <br />Conclusion <br />: <br />Variance Request #13-93000001 is to allow for 3’ side setbackin lieu of 5’ side building <br />lineof a standard lotis contrary to the provisions established by Section 106-771(4) of <br />the Code of Ordinances.In addition, the parameters forthe requested variance do not <br />appear to meet the provisionsestablished by Section 106-192(variances). <br />While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could <br />consider: <br /> <br />