CC MINUTES 08271996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes • August 27, 1996 Page 4 1 City's change in Code contributed to the cause of not being able to build using a 2 conforming lot." 3 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the variance request for a non- 4 conforming lot on Fordham Drive, for 7.49 feet in width and 223.7 square feet(96-13) 5 applied for by Bruce Nedegaard,Nedegaard Construction. 6 Motion carried unanimously. 7 3. William Hedberg for 2509-30th Avenue NE. variance requests for side yard 8 setback(96-11) 9 Mr. Bergstrom reported that the Petitioner has submitted an application for a side yard 10 setback variance of 5 feet in order to construct a 20 foot by 24 foot 2-car garage that will 11 be attached to the east side of their home. Currently the owners have a single car garage 12 that sets back from the house and five feet from the property line. The proposed attached 13 2-car garage would sit in front of the existing single car garage. The variance is needed 14 because the west side of the house sits five feet from the property line as well. The 15 combined side yard setbacks for this property is 10 feet; the City Ordinance requires a 16 combined total of 15 feet for side yard setbacks. 17 The owners have indicated that they had a need for the additional garage space and that 18 attaching it to their home would provide security to them both from the weather and 19 possible criminal activity that might be directed at them because of their age. Their 20 proposed attached double car garage would have two doors, one in front and the other in 21 the back so that they would have access to the existing garage that will sit behind the 22 proposed garage. The existing garage will.be used to store equipment. 23 Staff has received several telephone calls and a signed petition from neighbors in 24 opposition to the proposed construction. A letter from the owner's immediate neighbor to 25 the east was also received stating they are concerned with the potential loss of visibility 26 as a result of this project. Many were also concerned about what it would look like with 27 two garages on the same property. They felt something could be constructed that would 28 meet the owner's needs and be acceptable to the neighbors. 29 Staff recommends the request for a five foot variance to the side yard setback be denied 30 based on the amount of neighbor opposition presented. 31 The Planning Commission recommends denial of the request for a setback as the 32 Commission is unable to demonstrate an undue hardship, there are no physical 33 characteristics of the land, no extraordinary circumstances exist and the City Ordinance for this lot pertains to all other lots in the area and does not cause the problem.