Loading...
Miscellaneous O o ~ -~~i 5s' r 15 ~ ~~~ S~r~c-K I 1 C I ~ I I l G~~R~r hct,~ti7w~p ~p~UILp ~k0 ~'~ fi~o') 15' P E%,4GCE55 E~ `EC,~E o~ C[~1G2ET-P,(,LE~1 0 ~, ~~ sea- ~~ -~ 'P~''1 I ~`' ----~ ~~tl.~ '[~01t,~~'1,6 ~S V~ICII~ 35' x ~5 ~ ~s " Pt°cP ~ 3s'x ~o ~• MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner DATE: .August 30, 1995 RE: Discussion of ordinance amendment -rear access. setbacks At a recent meeting of the. Zoning Board of Adjustments, the Board heard a request for a rear setback request for garages to be placed on several. single family lots in Ea tmark subdivision. The Board gave direction for Staff to discuss the possibility of an ordinance amendment with .the appropriate decision-making bodies. The. case involved several lots that abut a 30' access easement, only 20' of which is paved. The rear .lot lines run down the center of the easement, .and places half of the easement and half of the paved section onto each individual lot. The rear yards of the lots therefore include a 15' access easement with a 10' paved section. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the 20' rear setback be measured from the nearest boundary of an easement, not from the property line. On these lots, therefore, the setback is required to be the 15' easement plus the 20' setback for: a total setback of 35' . The request was to be allowed to measure the required rear setback from the actual paved section of the easement, not the platted easement line. Due to the verbiage of the ordinance, we are required to measure fromthe platted easement. The intent of the requirement is to maintain a clearance of at least 20' from a garage to the easement so that there is room for a vehicle to pull off of .the. easement so that the traveled portion of the easement is not blocked.. A rewording of the ordinance to require that ..the setback (ie. clearance to the garage). be measured from the paved section and not the platted.'easement would meet the intent of the ordinance and be more in line with the treatment of utility easements. The Zoning Board expressed no concern with such an ordinance change and. found it to be reasonable. Related issue for discussion: A more recent ZBA case relates to rear alleys, where the property line is not in the center of the traveled portion, but rather on the edge of the alley. The ease involved a request for carports to extend all the way to the property line,. for total of a zero setback. The.: Board also referred the .case to legislative bodies, due to the fact that such an allowance would involve an ordinance amendment rather than. an individual. variance based on special circumstances.