11-10-1988 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting-cancelled/no quorum

Browse Search

.4 A total of ten (10) parking spaces (8 for the existing • building and 2 for the proposed addition) would be required. Parking for this establishment is limited to a 34.4 ft. X 50 ft. area located in front of the building. Using any parking arrangement currently allowed by ordinance (See Exhibit E), no more than four parking spaces could be developed on this property. As noted earlier, in addition to these zoning problems, the site plan review noted the problem of inadequate fire protection. The City's Fire Code requires a fire hydrant to be located within three hundred (300) feet of the furthest point of a building. This distance is measured along the lines the fire department would have to follow when laying down a hose during a fire. An additional fire hydrant would be necessary in order to provide required fire protection to a building addition in this location. Conclusion: Under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-604.3, the Board, in order to grant an appeal must find the following conditions to be met. A. That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or • zoning map, provided the interruption of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. B. That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. C. The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. Regarding this appeal, the provisions of Section 6-500 are very clear. There has been no evidence presented to indicate a misinterpretation on staff's part as required by paragraph a. Secondly, granting this appeal would show special privilege to this property. The special privilege would result in the reduction of setback, lot coverage, and parking requirements entailed in an approval of this request. This would be contrary to the requirements of paragraph b. While it determine the • this appeal, "consistent w ordinance and is the Board's charge, under paragraph c, to "best interest of the community" when ruling on staff feels granting this request would not be ith the spirit and interest of the City's zoning the Comprehensive Plan." Recommendation: Deny this appeal to the Enforcing Officer's decision.