Loading...
6.2. SR 12-16-2002River MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Leeseberg, Planner DATE: December 16, 2002 SUBJECT: Case No. V 02-08 Request by Lou & Pat for a Front Yard Setback Variance. Item #6.2. Request The applicant requests that a variance be granted to allow construction of a detached garage within the 35-foot Front Yard Setback on a corner lot. The two front yard setbacks would be reduced to 23 and 18-feet respectively. Attachments · Location Map · Applicant's Letter · Applicant's Narrative · Site Plan · Aerial Photo · Photos of Subject Property · Alternate Option A. · September 25, 2001 (V 01-07) Minutes · March 26, 2002 Og 02-03) Minutes · May 28, 2002 (V 02-04) Minutes · Portion of Staff Report (V 02-04) Location 19796 Lowell Street NW (corner of Lowell Street & 198th Avenue) Lot-7 Block-7 Brentwood Addition Zoning/Land Use Rla, Single Family Residential / LR, Low Density Residential Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 2 Existine Conditions The property is located in Brentwood Addition which is zoned Rla with a minimum lot size of 2 ~ acres. However, the subdivision was platted in 1980, prior to the Rla zoning and this property is only 1.3 acres in size. About two thirds of the property is heavily wooded and approximately one-third of the eastern side is cleared which contains the existing home, well, septic field and retaining walls. The property is a corner lot, which has two front property lines. Because of heavy vegetation, the house and the proposed location of the garage would not be visible from any neighboring homes. The terrain of the property slopes down from the house to the west. There is a considerable amount of grade change (approximately 6-8 feet) from the house to where a garage could be built without a variance. Overview The applicant purchased the home in its existing condition about two years ago. The reasons he would like to construct the garage within the two front yard setbacks are to minimize tree loss and also to have easy access from his house. The garage will be used to store belongings out of sight to help maintain curb appeal. The ordinance allows up to 2,500 square feet of accessory building area. The applicant is proposing an additional 840 square feet of space for a total of 1,416 square feet. The applicant, due to his physical constraints, desires having the proposed garage to be at the same level as the existing garage for ease of access and use. The applicant is making conscious efforts to save existing trees as well as to make his quality of life easier. Skewing the garage, as shown in the applicant's proposal, would minimize the amount of fill needed to build up the driveway to the garage. Encroaching into either setback, as shown in the applicant's proposal, will not be visually noticeable as there is no visible relationship to neighboring buildings. Placing the garage as shown in Alternate Option A will still require a variance and again would not be visually noticeable. With the applicant's proposal, sight lines for vehicular traffic will not be impeded. Placing the garage on the other side of the house will also require a variance. At the November 26, 2002 meeting, the Board of Adjustments stated findings for denial of the variance as "conditions of the criteria are not met, especially item three." Item three states: S:~PL2kNNING\Case Files\V 02-08 Pertl\V02-08 CC.DOC Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 3 Staff had replied to the condition with: "With s/gnfic~nt tree rotund, the applicant would not be deprived of right enjoyed by others." To construct the garage behind the house would require a great deal of tree removal for both the structure as well as for a driveway that would meet the allowable slopes. The applicant does not wish to remove any trees unnecessarily. In regards to the tree removal, the applicant has included a letter regarding his confusion on why the trees on his property were not a compelling condition, but later that night, the Planning Commission voted in favor of both a tree preservation and a tree ordinance, which will limit the number of trees property owners can remove. In the applicant's letter, he also referenced two variances (V 01-07 & V 02-04) that were granted. In these variances, there were conditions related to vegetation/terrain, lot size and personal physical constraints that favored permitting the variances to be granted. The minutes from both meetings and a portion of a staff report has been included. A third variance (V 02-03) was also granted with conditions related to physical abilities as well as difficult terrain, although the terrain in this case was much more extreme. Analysis In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following five conditions must be met: 1. Literal enforcemmt of the ordinance ~ cause undue hardship. Literal enforcement ~ould require the applicant to place the garage in a location that will not suit the applicant s physical needs and would not be accessible. It will also require the rem?al of a.significant amount of trees to place the structure in an area that would not reqmre a vanance. The hardship is caused by ~ conditions and cimanaanas, ~ are petuliar to the ~ ard the structure ~ and whidv are not char~stic of, or applicable to, other lands or struaum in the The hardship is caused by spedal conditions and drcumstances that are peculiar to the land. The lot size is much smaller than the minimal lot size for that zoning district. The site is heavily wooded and the house was placed dose to the road to minimize the impact of tree removal. The contour of the terrain limits the applicant's mobility. The location of the well restricts how dose the garage can be to the house. The property is a corner lot, which has two front property lines, which further restricts the "side" of the house. other ~s in the same district under the toms of this ordinane. S:kPLANNING\Case Files\V 02-08 Pertl\V02-08 CC.DOC Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 4 Other properties in the same district do not have the same characteristics (lot size, terrain, vegetation) that limit the land that is available to construct additional garage space. Other properties do have detached garages. The special conditions are not a consequence of the applicant's actions or inactions. The spedal conditions relate to the physical characteristics of the site and the location of the house, well and septic field. The house was purchased in its existing condition by the applicant. o The granting of this variance would not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is located. The removal of oak trees may in fact produce oak wild in the area if not done properly. Board of Adjustments Actions At the November 26, 2002 meeting, the Board of Adjustments fek that the loss of trees was not a significant hardship and stated findings for denial of the variance as "conditions of the criteria are not met, especially number three." One member did not feel that significant tree removal was more important than meeting the setback requirements. There was no public opposition at the public hearing. The Board of Adjustments voted 6-1 to deny both the applicant's proposal as well as staff Option A. The Board of Adjustments was not presented any testimony of the applicant's physical conditions. It was brought to staff's attention after the November 26, 2002 meeting. Recommendation Staff believes that the applicant's proposal has more architectural curb appeal over staff Option A. Option A will make the house appear to be a long narrow structure. With the applicant's proposal, the garage would be skewed creating visual interest to the faqade. Either option will require a variance. Staff recommends that the City Council grant the variance request, as proposed by the applicant, of the front yard setbacks from 35-feet to 23-feet on the Lowell Street side and from 35-feet to 18-feet on the 198th Avenue side. The recommendation is based on the following findings: S:KPLANNING\Case Files\V 02-08 Peril\V02-08 CC.DOC Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 5 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PLACE THE GARAGE IN A LOCATION THAT WILL NOT SUIT THE APPLICANT'S PHYSICAL NEEDS AND WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE. IT WILL ALSO REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES TO PLACE THE STRUCTURE IN AN AREA THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND. THE LOT SIZE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE MINIMAL LOT SIZE FOR THAT ZONED AREA. THE SITE IS HEAVILY WOODED AND THE HOUSE WAS PLACED CLOSE TO THE ROAD TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF TREE REMOVAL. THE CONTOUR OF THE TERRAIN LIMITS THE APPLICANT'S MOBILITY. THE LOCATION OF THE WELL RESTRICTS HOW CLOSE THE GARAGE CAN BE TO THE HOUSE. THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT, WHICH HAS TWO FRONT PROPERTY LINES, WHICH FURTHER RESTRICTS THE "SIDE" OF THE HOUSE. OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS (LOT SIZE, TERRAIN, VEGETATION) THAT LIMIT THE LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACE. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS OR INACTIONS. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, WELL AND SEPTIC FIELD. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE REMOVAL OF OAK TREES MAY IN FACT PRODUCE OAK WILD IN THE AREA IF NOT DONE PROPERLY. S:kPLANNING\Case Files\V 02-08 PertlkV02-08 CC.DOC " of Location Map Case Number: V 02-08 PAT & LOU PERTL N CASE NO V 02-08 The follow is additional information for consideration in case no. V 02-08 1. I'm rather confused why my trees were not seen as important or as a hardship? The city of Elk River tonight is considering a Tree Preservation Ordinance Case No.( OA 02-07) to save trees in Elk River. The same ordinance the planning commission saw the night of my variance request. Our request 'for a variance is to save many mature Oak Trees, as such, approving the variance would be a 'win win situation between the city and ourselves ( many trees would be saved) Options: a) Grant the request for the variance as requested. b) Build the garage in the wooded area, where many mature trees woUld have to be removed for both the garage and drive way. (in my opinion this would be a lose lose situation) c) Do nothing. I have a Disabled Persons Parking Sticker No. 418327and walking up and down the hill to a new garage in the woods would be a hardship for myself. a) We would have to use the drive way and road to get to this location approximately 425 feet or b) Using the backyard we would have to walk 100 feet up/down hill and over an embankment and through trees. It should be noted that two variances have been approved within the last 15 months with similar circumstances, such as terrain, existing vegetation (mature trees), lot size and personal physical constraints. Variance No V01 - 07 Variance No V02 - 04 Lou perl:l ~,,;;~ Date: 12 06 02 We, Pat and Lou Pertl are requesting permission to construct a 2 and 1/2 car de- tached garage on our lot at 19796 Lowell St NW Elk River MN. 55330. To construct a 2 and 1/2 car garage with out a variance would require us to place the garage about 100 feet down hill from the house, making access very difficult and in the middle of mature oak trees due to the terrain and septic field thus de- stroying a large number of these trees. The variance we are requesting ( See attachment B ) would keep the new garage at a similar elevation as the existing garage thus maximizing the convenience of its usage, be similar in style to the existing garage, set on a angle to enhance the curb,,,appeal, no trees would have to removed and we would have enough space to store everything under roof thus keeping with high standards of our neighbor- hood. ATTACHMENT C The maximum size garage we could build without a variance is single car garage and would be located 15 feet from the house, do to well, and would be: 1. At a lower elevation than the existing garage. 2. The roof styles would not match ( single vs double) 3. Would not be large enough to house two vehicles, a boat and trailer, patio furniture, garbage containers etc; thus some thing would have to stand out side. The rest of the lot is down hill fi'om the house and covered with mature oak trees ,thus not a suitable place for a garage because it would require the removal ora lot of the mature oaks and be very inconvenient to use. Even with 1.3 acre lot we do not have another place to put the garage (look at B above) The topography of the land is rolling hills sloping down hill covered with mature oaks. The variance will not obstruct a persons view at the stop sign at 198th and Lowell st. I~IEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEPIBER 25, 2001 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Baker, Franz and Ropp Commissioner Schuster arrived at 6:34 p.m. Members Absent: Commissioner Mesich Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner/Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 3.1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m.. by~ Chair Pederson. Consider 9/25/01 Board of Adjustments Agenda COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Consider 8/28/01 Board of Adjustments Minutes COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 28, 2001 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: - ITEM 4.1. PAGE 2. - ADD THE FOLLOWING: COMMISSIONER BAKER STATED THAT HE FELT THE APPLICANT HAD OTHER OPTIONS FOR LOCATING THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY. - ITEM 4.1. PAGES 3. AND 4. - COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED APPROVAL .... COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Request by Jamie and Sandy Slocum for a Variance, Public Hearing - Case No. V OI-C~ Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. Jan'fie and Sandy Slocum, 20020 Gary Street, have requested a variance to the 20 foot side yard setback in order to construct a 14 foot wide addition to their existing attached garage. The minimum lot size in this zoning district is 2 acres, however, the Countryside Acres subdivision was approved with average lots sizes of __one acre prior to the adoption of the Rla zoning. The proposed garage addition would 10 feet from the adjacent property line. Typically, one-acre lots in the City have a garage side setback of 5 feet. Staff feels that the applicant meets the five findings necessary for granting a variance. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed these findings. Board of Adjustments Minutes September 25, 2001 Page 2 Commissioner Schuster arrived at this time (7:34 p.m.) Commissioner Franz asked when Countryside Acres was platted. Ms. McPherson stated that it was platted sometime before the City and Township were consolidated in 1978. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Robert Kampa, 13273 200th Avenue NW, asked for clarification as to which setback the variance would affect. He expressed his concern that locating the addition closer to the street would affect site lines, and any future street improvements. Mr. Leeseberg explained that the applicant proposed to construct an addition to the side of his existing garage and the front setback would remain the same. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Chair Pederson asked how close the neighboring home is to the property line. Mr. Slocum stated that the home is 36 feet from the property line and that there is approximately 50 feet between the two homes. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED APPROVAL'OF THE REQUEST BY JAMIE AND SANDY SLOCUM FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, CASE NO. V 01-06, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THE ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDE INDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL POSSESSIONS. THE CODE ALLOWS UP TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA, WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE 1,148 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA, WELL UNDER THE 2,000 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED BY CODE. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT Aide PECULIAR TO THE LAND IN THAT THE ~TERRAIN. THE WETLAND, LOCATION OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND EXISTING VEGETATION LIMIT POSSIBLE LOCATION..S. FOR A STORAGE BUILDING. OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS THAT LIMIT THE LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL GARAGE SPACE. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS OR INACTION. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBOR.HOOD. COMMISSIONER SCHUSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Franz opposed. Board of Adjustments Minutes March 26, 2002 Page 3 ( Beth and Mike for Side Yard Setback Public Request by Willoughby Variance, Hearing Case No. V 02-03 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. Beth and Mike Willoughby, 19619 Tyler Street, request that a variance be granted to allow a pottery shed/studio to be within the 35 foot front yard setback and within the 20 foot side yard setback. Mr. Leeseberg presented a video of the property, explaining that the property is very unique. He reviewed the location and construction of the proposed 12' x 16' pottery shed. He noted that the peak of the shed will be approximately at grade level of Tyler Street. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the five findings necessary for granting a variance, and why staff fek each of the findings can be met in this case. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Chair Pederson opened the public heating. Commissioner Mesich asked how much of a variance is being requested. Mr. Leeseberg explained that the variance would be for 8 feet from the side yard setback and 26 feet from the front yard setback. Mike Willoughby, applicant, 19619 Tyler Street, explained the terrain of the site and why the site was chosen. Mr. Willoughby stated that his wife has health concerns that would make k difficult for her tO navigat~ the steep slope if the shed where placed closer to the house. Commissioner Baker stated that he concurred that the applicant has very few options for placement of the shed and he is in agreement with staff's recommendation for approval. Chair Pederson stated that he feels the lay of the land constitutes a hardship and felt is was appropriate to support the variance. Commissioner Franz stated that he did not support the finding of a hardship and felt that grading and excavation could resolve the issues with the steep slope. Chair Pederson felt grading of the site would create a significant impact on the site and the ,trees,~ Mr. Willoughby stated that he did consider excavation and ruled it out because of the location of the septic system and well head, and possible damage to the foundation of his home, if he excavated to the south. Commissioner Franz asked how high the peak of the roof would be beyond the guard rail on Tyler Street. Mr. Willoughby stated that the peak would be approximately 1 foot above the rail. Chair Pederson asked if there was an erosion problem. Mr. Willoughby stated that the area where the drainfield is was constructed has some minimal erosion but when the vegetation is re-established, the erosion will be eliminated. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BETH AND MIKE WILLOUGHBY FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 9 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD Board of Adjusmaents Minutes March 26, 2002 Page 4 SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 12 FEET, CASE NO. V 02-03, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BUILD A SHED IN A LOCATION THAT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE OR WOULD CREATE AESTHETIC IMPACTS TO THE SUBJECT OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE ,HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY. DUE TO STEEP, VEGETATED SLOPES AND WETLAND AREAS, THE SITE HAS FEW BUILDABLE AREAS. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONSTRUCT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS ALLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. THE HOUSE WAS PLACED WHERE IT IS BY A PREVIOUS OWNER. 5. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. COMMISSIONER MESICH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Other Business - None 5. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfl. flly submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Baker, Ropp and Schuster Members Absent: Commissioners Franz and Mesich Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner, Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner/Planner 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 5/28/02 Board of Adjustments Agenda COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 28, 2002 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Request by Leighton Grani for Variance, Public Hearing - Case No. V 02-04 Mr. HarE&er reviewed the request, showed images of the existing conditions, and reviewed the map referencing the existing buildings and location of setbacks. He stated that the rear yard setback could be met with an attached building, however, the front yard setback could not be met due to the need for a 20 foot setback from the septic field. Staff recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had talked to the applicant about considering an attached garage. Leighton Grani, applicant, provided a petition from the adjacent neighbors stating no opposition. Chair Pederson asked the applicant if the attached garage was an option. The applicant stated no, that they preferred a detached garage on a floating slab. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson dosed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE REPORT. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Memo to Board of Adjustments May 28, 2002 Page 2 _~._----- .:Ex~st~ng Conditions The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Island View Drive and 190th Avenue. It is approximately 18,000 square feet (.4 acres). The lot slopes down from the east, along 190th Avenue, to the west property line. The existing house has an attached garage that is at the basement level. The entrance is into the basement with outside stairs leading up to the front door. Along the western edge of the property is a line of mature pine trees and along the north edge of the property there is a line of mature bushes including lilacs. Overview The proposed garage will be a 26' x 24' (624 square feet). Ir will be located 11 feet north of the existing house. The proposed location is to avoid the existing drain field as well as several mature trees on the site. The garage is proposed to be setback 15 feet from the rear property line and 21 feet from the front property line. The required rear setback is"2~_ feet ~_~ and the required front setback is 35 feet. The lot is a corner lot and therefore has two front yards. The property' line opposite the front of the house is considered the rear property line. ~~Be~ause of Mrs. Grani's physical constraints they need to relocate their garage so that it is at~ [X" ' the same level as the entrance to their house. The steps leading up to the main level of~.~ X,,,,,, house are difficult for her to climb. ' Because of the required 20 foot setback from the drain field, the garage can not be moved any further back from 190~h Avenue. There is some flexibility to move the garage closer to the house and increase the rear yard setback. Analysis In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following five conditions must be met: 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. 2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. 4. The special conditions and circumstances.are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. S:x, PLANNING\C~e Files\V 02-04 Grani\V 02-04.doc Memo to Board of Adjustments May 28, 2002 Page 3 5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is located and will be in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance. Literal enforcement would require the applicant to place the garage in a location that will not suit the applicant's needs. The garage could be moved closer to the house and meet the 20 foot rear yard setback. By placing the garage 5 feet closer to the house the need for a rear yard setback is eliminated. The garage can not be setback any further from 190th Avenue because of the drainfield. However, the garage setback will be the same as the existing house. The site is unique in the fact that the property is much smaller than what the current R-lb District requires for a non-sewered lot area. Non-sewered lots in the R-lb district must be a minimum of 1-acre. There is, however, space on the property for the proposed garage, septic system and the well. Lkeral application of the ordinance provisions would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. Other properties in the area have two car garages with easy access into the main floor of the house. The need for the variance is not a result of the petitioners action or inaction. The need for the variance is a result of the slope of the land and the location of the drainfield. The request would not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity. Recommendation Staff recommends that Board of Adjustments approve the request to allow a variance to build within the 35-foot Front Yard Setback based on the following findings: Literal enforcement would require, the applicant to place the garage in a location that will no.t suit the applicant's needs. Because of the topography there is no alternative location on the property that would be s~aitable for a garage. The garage can not be setback any further from 190th Avenue because of the drainfield. However, the garage setback will be the same as the existing house. The site is unique in the fact that the property is much smaller than what the current R-lb District requires.for a non-sewered lot area. Non-sewered lots in the R-lb district must be a minimum of 1-acre. There is, however, space on the property for the proposed garage, septic system and the well. Literal application of the ordinance provisions would deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. Other properties in the area have two car garages with easy access into the main floor of the house. The need for the variance is not a result of the petitioners action or inaction. The need for the variance is a result of the slope of the land and the location of the drainfield.~ S:\PLANNING\Case Files\V 02-04 Grani\V 02-04.doc