Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: V07-08 <br />Page 3 <br />Aws Hjeanstad <br />According the definition section of the City Code hardship is described as "the property in <br />question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by article VI, Division <br />13 of this chapter." The subject site currently has a three stall attached garage, City Code <br />requites two stalls per dwelling unit for single family use, the lot has already been put to <br />reasonable use by constructing the house and garage. Literal enforcement of the ordinance most <br />likely will not cause undue hardship. <br />2. The hardship is caused b~ecial conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the ~ro~Zerty and the <br />strucdure involved and which are not characterirtic of or a~dicable to other /andr or rtnrcture in the same area. <br />The subject site is a comer lot; comer lots have two front setbacks for the principal and <br />accessory buildings. The principal building is a walkout style house, the lot is sloped to the rear. <br />Due to the layout of the lot, the house and the side yard setback (front) there is not a location <br />fox the accessory structure without encroaching on one of the setbacks. <br />3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a conreauence ofthe~etitioner'.r own action or inaction. <br />The subject site was graded as a walkout lot prior to the homeowners buying the lot and <br />building. The pool in the backyard uses a significant portion of the buildable land within the <br />setbacks. <br />4. The literal cr~litation of the~rovisions o~ this orzlinance would derive the petitioner of rights en~oyed by other <br />broberties in the same district under the terms of this ordinauce. <br />If a regular side setback applied to this location the accessory structure addition would not need <br />a variance. It is common for residential developments to have mare than one accessory structure <br />on site. <br />5. The variance wild not be iniuriaus to or adversely a~ect the health sa~ or we~are o~the yesidentr o the city or <br />the nez~barhood where the~erty is located and wield be in keebina with sbint and intent of'the otrlinance. <br />An addition to the existing garage should not adversely affect the health, safety ar welfare of <br />residents or the city ox the neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, the garage addition will <br />likely not detract from the chazacter of the neighborhood. <br />Recommendation <br />Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments deny the request. However, if the Board of <br />Adjustments approves the request staff suggests the conditions listed on page one of this report <br />apply. <br />Respectfully Submitted <br /> <br />Sheila Cartney <br />S:\PLANNING\Case Files\Variance\V 07-08 Hiermstad\Staff ieport.doc <br />