6.8. SR 04-20-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 98-1 April 20, 1998 Page 3 proposed location that would work (see alternate location plan). Placing the garage in this location would still leave about 60 feet between the house the proposed garage. Staff does not believe that an undue hardship has been shown. The two properties to the west have buildings with similar setbacks. It does not appear the proposed location would be out of character when compared to those properties. The property to the east, the Lind's, has a detached garage similar to what the applicant is proposing which complies with the required setbacks. Board of Adjustment Meeting At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on March 24, 1998, no one spoke at the public hearing. The Johnsons explained that meeting the setback requirement would reduce the size of their front yard, would reduce the value of their property and would be aesthetically unappealing. They also introduced a letter from the neighbors in support of the variance. Since there is an alternate location that meets the setback requirements and does not impact the irrigation system or landscaping, and the change in elevation between the proposed location and the alternate location is minimal, and the alternate location still provides for a substantial front yard, the Board felt that the applicant did not meet the criteria for hardship and voted to deny the application. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council deny this variance request based on the following finding: Since there is an alternate location which meets the setback requirement and does not impact the irrigation system or landscaping, and the change in elevation between the proposed location and the alternate location is minimal, and the alternate location still provides for a substantial front yard, the applicant did not show that literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. s:\planning\scott\v98- lcc.doc