Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/V 97-16 <br />November 16, 1997 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The applicant did not indicate why he needs the detached garage. It might be <br />possible to design the garage so that it is narrow and longer thereby reducing <br />the cluttered appearance and size of the variance. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment Meeting <br /> <br />At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on October 28th , no one spoke at <br />the public hearing. The applicant explained that he needed the garage to <br />store personal property. He also explained that it would cost 3 times as much <br />to construct an addition to the existing garage than it would to construct the <br />proposed detached garage. He also said that he could reduce the width of the <br />garage from 24 to 22 feet but did not want to place it any closer to the house. <br />The Board noted the UPA power easement and the constraints it placed on <br />the property, but they did not believe that wanting an uncluttered <br />appearance was grounds for a hardship and voted 6 to I to deny the variance <br />request. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />It is recommended that the City Council deny this variance request based on <br />the following findings: <br /> <br />THE APPLICANT DID NOT SHOW THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE <br />WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS <br />WHICH PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD <br />SETBACK <br /> <br />THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT <br />OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD <br /> <br />s:\planning\scott\v9716cc.doc <br /> <br /> <br />