03/14/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 3 The standard 40 ft. building setback from a collector street also applied because 12th Avenue was a collector street. The setback from the road, which applies to all buildings, was measured from the edge of the right of way. The trail strip was 15 ft., and the proposed garage was shown 13.5 ft. from that, for a total setback from the road of 28.5 ft. This encroached into the required setback by 11.5 ft. (40 — 28.5 = 11.5). Lot 8 did include some unusual elements. The lot was rather narrow at its front line. As noted, the trail corridor exists along 12th Ave., which reduces the lot width from what it would be without the trail. There was a drainage and utility easement covering a large portion in the northeast corner of the lot. In addition, there was an extra 30 feet covered by a wetland conservation buffer easement, which further reduced the buildable area of the lot. Moving the house toward the back of the lot would leave very little backyard. Mr. Boschee's letter stated that the problem arose due to a larger setback on a corner lot. It would be more accurate to state that the street setback was greater than the side yard setback, which results in a de facto larger setback on a corner lot, though it was not listed as a "corner -lot setback." During the review of the plat in 1999, City staff and the developer discussed the building pads for the lots. The building pad location on Lot 8 of the approved preliminary plat and associated grading plan met the 40 ft. road setback. Nothing had changed between the time of plat approval and the house design. No additional requirements had been added, nor were there any hidden requirements. All easements were recorded with the property and show up on a survey. The house pad location was a standard element of plat approvals. The setback requirements had not changed in the past two years. Staff stated in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Though the builder should have known the requirements of the site and designed the house to fit within them, Lot 8 was a relatively difficult lot. • Its shape and the double street setbacks combined with the wetland and extra buffer easements create unusual circumstances. • It was not reticence to spend extra money to avoid the variance, but rather the desire to build a home of a high enough value to fit in with the neighborhood.