Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Planning Commission <br />Case No. V 96-1 <br />February 27, 1996 <br /> <br />Subject Site <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The property is .36 acres in size, about 211 feet deep and 75 feet wide. The site <br />has a house, a 20' X 24' detached garage and a small storage shed. The storage <br />shed is setback 23 feet from the front property line in the area where the <br />applicant is proposing to construct their second garage. Adjacent to the shed on <br />the east is a small one car parking area. There are several trees on the west side <br />of the storage shed. The site is level with no topographic limitations affecting <br />the placement of the proposed second garage. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />There does not appear to be any physical, topographic or vegetative constraints <br />that would prohibit the applicant from complying with the 30 foot setback <br />requirement. Locating the garage as proposed by the applicant would require <br />the removal of the only trees in that area of the front yard; placing the garage so <br />that it comphes with the setback requirement would allow the applicant to save <br />the existing trees on the west side of the storage shed. Those trees would provide <br />some screening between the garage and the road. <br /> <br />Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 of the Elk River Code of <br />Ordinances for the standards to consider when reviewing a variance. Staff also <br />refers the Commission to the applicant's letter which outlines their reasoning for <br />this variance request. <br /> <br />It is not clear what undue hardship the applicant will face by complying with <br />the 30 foot setback requirement. Complying with the 30 foot setback will still <br />allow for about 70 feet between the house and the proposed garage and will <br />preserve the existing trees on that side of the front yard. There does not appear <br />to be any special conditions unique to this site that are not applicable to other <br />properties in the area. The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety <br />and welfare of the neighborhood. However, the variance will impact the ' <br />aesthetics of the neighborhood. Of the 23 lots on this cul-de-sac de sac, there <br />appears to be one property with a storage shed which violates the front yard <br />setback and possibly one garage that does. Both of these properties are not <br />adjacent to the applicant but are towards the other end of the cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />It is Staffs opinion that this request does not meet the five standards required to <br />grant a variance and, therefore, recommends denial of the 10 foot front yard <br />setback variance based on the following findings: <br /> <br />s:\planning\scott\v96-1.doc <br /> <br /> <br />