06/22/1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland DATE: 6/11/98 TOPIC: James Brandi, 7057 Rice Lake Court, Variance BACKGROUND: Mr. James Brandt of 7057 Rice Lake Court is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 32 x 28 detached garage 19' from the property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 30', therefore, the variance requested is for 11'. Mr. Brandls' property is located on the corner of Rice Lake Lane and Rice Lake Court. The proposed garage will face Rice Lake Court. This particular roadway has a slight curve, therefore, the varied setback as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Brandt plans to construct this garage in line with his existing home, however, due to the curve in the road, the same setback as the home can not be maintained. He is prohibited from moving the proposed structure toward the back yard due to a large drainage easement and retaining wall. Mr. Brandi has recently removed two structures from his property, a 24 x 24 car port and a 12 x 20 barn that was located in the same position as the proposed new garage. The total square footage proposed will be within the requirements of the Ordinance as will the number of accessory buildings allowed. Following is the criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance that is necessary to review when considering a variance request. A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. Unique circumstances exist in the large drainage easement, retaining wall, and curved nature of Rice Lake Court. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The hardship is not economic. D. That granting the variance requested will 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. Others with similar circumstances could be considered for a similar request. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values have probably been increased with the removal of the car port and barn and will be enhanced by the addition of a new building. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.