04-15-2002 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 4 COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN MOVED TO CONTRIBUTE $1,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. MAYOR KLINZING SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6.1. Request by Ken and Tami Turner for Side Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing - Case No. V 02-02 Staff report submitted by Planner Chris Leeseberg. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from five feet to zero feet to allow a garage addition. He explained the criteria that must be met in order to meet the variance requirements. The Board of Adjustments denied the variance request. Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing. Ken Turner, 557 7th Street - Stated that since the snow has left his yard he remeasured the layout of where his proposed garage would fit on the site. He stated that the garage would be about three and a half feet from the property line and not right on the line. He stated that his neighbor to the east is three feet from the property line with his garage. Mr. Turner stated that two trees would have to be removed to install the garage and these trees are currendy causing problems with his sewer lines. Councilmember Motin stated that without a survey of the property, he did not want to rely on the measurements by the homeowner used to determine the location of the garage addition. Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. Planning Commissioner Marc Pederson stated that other garages in the area appear to meet the setback requirements and Mr. Pederson discussed the concerns of the adjacent property owners regarding water drainage and the tree loss. COUNCLMEMBER TVEITE MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY KEN AND TAMI TURNER FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA. THE LETERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION.