Laserfiche WebLink
Commission denied the variance request in an effort to determine if there were any <br />options regarding the lean-to beyond complete removal, which was a requirement of <br />Resolution 645-00. Because of the configuration of the home and garage, there is no <br />other place to have such a lean-to structure. While an accessory storage building <br />could be built elsewhere on the lot, it would not be as convenient as where the lean-to <br />exists now. <br /> <br />The garage was constructed 10 feet from the property line and the lean-to, attached <br />to the garage using the same roof-line as the garage, extends to the north property <br />line. The zoning requirements state that a garage or accessory structure be set back <br />five feet from a property line. The lean-to, because it is a structure attached to the <br />garage, is subject to the five-foot setback requirement. Mr. Wilson has indicated that <br />as a compromise, he could “cut back” the lean-to so that it was approximately four <br />feet from the property line. If cut back by four feet, the structure would still require <br />approval of a variance, but the extent of the variance would be minimal in comparison <br />to what was originally requested. Even so, the same standards regarding “hardship” <br />would still apply to the structure. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the variance, yet <br />is willing to compromise on the extent of the variance required. Rather than overturn <br />the Planning Commission’s decision, staff would suggest that the Council deny the <br />appeal partly because all of the hardship criteria cannot be met and primarily because <br />it appears possible to alter the structure to comply with the zoning requirements. If <br />Mr. Wilson indicates that it is possible to satisfy the code requirements, the appeal <br />should be denied simply because the variance would not be needed. The resolution <br />denying the appeal however should explicitly state that the structure can remain, <br />subject to four stipulations: <br /> <br />• The structure shall be altered to meet all zoning and setback requirements, <br />• A building permit shall be obtained for the structure, <br />• City inspectors shall be allowed access to inspect the alterations, and <br />• The altered structure shall comply with all corresponding Building Codes. <br /> <br />If Mr. Wilson cannot comply with these stipulations, staff would recommend that in its <br />resolution denying the appeal, the Council reaffirm the Planning Commission’s <br />requirement to completely remove the entirety of the structure and restore the <br />garage to its original condition. <br /> <br /> <br />_________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director <br />763-717-4021 <br /> <br />Attachments: <br />1. Planning Commission Report <br />2. Planning Commission Resolution 645-00 <br />3. Letters from Residents in Opposition of Variance <br />4. Letter from John Wilson <br />N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Vr00-008 (Wilson)\Wilson Apepal to Council.doc