Urban Planning and Land Use




Yüklə 24.96 Kb.
tarix17.04.2016
ölçüsü24.96 Kb.



Urban Planning and Land Use

701 North 7th Street, Room 423 Phone: (913) 573-5750

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Fax: (913) 573-5796

Email: planninginfo@wycokck.org www.wycokck.org/planning




To: Board of Zoning Appeals

From: City Staff

Date: October 11, 2004


Re: Petition #1777

GENERAL INFORMATION





Applicant:

Ramon Marrufo


Status of Applicant:

Owner


1010 Ella Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66102


Requested Action:

Approve variances


Date of Application:

July 2, 2004


Purpose:

This appeal has been filed to facilitate

the construction of a detached accessory building. Ordinance Section

27-1273(2) states that detached accessory buildings must be at least sixty (60) feet from the front property line, two (2) feet from any alley and three (3) feet from any side property line, and shall not cover more than thirty (30) percent of the required rear yard. Violations of both setback and lot coverage are proposed.



Property Location: 1010 Ella Avenue
Existing Zoning: R-2(B) Two Family District
Existing Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2(B) Two Family District

South: R-2(B) Two Family District

East: C-3 Commercial District

West: R-2(B) Two Family District
Existing Uses: North: Single family residences

South: Single family residences

East: Mixed residential and commercial

West: Single family residences
Neighborhood Characteristics: This is an older area of predominantly single-family residences on relatively small lots, some of which have been converted to two-family or multi-family uses. Just to the east is a strip on the west side of North 10th Street that has been zoned commercial for at least 60 years but which still contains numerous residential structures.
Total Tract Size: 25’ x 115’; .07 acre
Master Plan: The K.C.K. Land Use Plan, as amended November 13, 1989, designates this property for Low Density Residential development.
Major Street Plan: North 10th Street is designated a Class C thoroughfare
Advertisement: The Wyandotte Echo, August 18, 2004
Public Hearing: September 7, 2004; October 11, 2004
Public Opposition: None to date.

PROPOSAL


Detailed Outline of Requested Action: This matter was held over from the September 7, 2004 hearing due to the absence of the appellant and the disclosure that construction of the proposed structure is already well underway. As no plans have been submitted for a building permit at this time, certain details about this appeal are lacking. However, it involves a request to legalize the erection of a new detached accessory building at the rear of an existing single family residence, between the residence and an existing accessory building and abutting the alley on the east. Because of the very small size of the lot relative to the size of the residence, the new structure will take up virtually all of the remaining rear yard area between the two existing buildings. Under these circumstances, neither a second accessory building nor an addition to the existing garage can be erected without violating lot coverage restrictions and the setback requirements. Hence the requested variances.

City Ordinance Requirements: Article III Sections 27- 46 – 27- 49 and Article XXII Sections 27-1082 – 27-1100




STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Five Conditions Set by State Statute:

  1. The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and which is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.




  1. The granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.




  1. The strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance of which variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.




  1. The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.




  1. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED




  1. The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and which is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant.

The small size of the lot relative to the size of the residence is a pre-existing condition for which the present property owner is in no way responsible. However, the decision to begin construction of a second, large accessory building on the lot without permits is clearly self-created.



  1. The granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.

An adverse effect could exist if the placement of the proposed accessory building would inhibit the safe utilization of the adjoining alleys.



  1. The strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance of which variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

It is unclear what unnecessary hardship, if any, would be involved. The reasons for the appellant’s violation of city ordinances is unknown at this time.



  1. The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.

The requirement for a minimal rear yard area providing open space for residents has long been considered related to the public health, safety and welfare, and is found in virtually all zoning ordinances.



  1. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.


The general spirit and intent of the ordinance would clearly be violated by variances of the type and degree proposed here.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS

Much of the construction of the proposed building has already been carried out without permits. In the photograph provided by the appellant, it would appear that the new structure is attached to the south end of the existing garage, and possibly to the north end of the house as well.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY case #1777 subject to all comments and suggestions outlined in this staff report.

ATTACHMENTS


Mortgage Survey

Plans/Picture

Sketch

REVIEW OF INFORMATION AND SCHEDULE



Action Board of Zoning Appeals

Public Hearing September 7, 2004

Heldover

October 11, 2004



STAFF CONTACT: Larry K. Hancks

MOTIONS

I move the Board of Zoning Appeals DENY Case #1777, as it is not in compliance with the City Ordinances as it will not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Kansas City, Kansas; and other such reasons that have been mentioned.


OR
I move the Board of Zoning Appeals APPROVE Case #1777 as meeting all the requirements of the City code and being in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare, subject to such modifications as are necessary to resolve to the satisfaction of City Staff all comments contained in the Staff Report; and the following additional requirements:
1._________________________________________________________;
2. _____________________________________________________; And
3. ________________________________________________________.








Appeal #1777 October 11, 2004




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə