Variance Request-126 20th Ave. N.PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT NO: VN87 -9
Planning Commission Report
VARIANCE REQUEST - 126 20TH AVENUE NORTH
SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on an application
for a 4 1/2 foot side yard variance.
BACKGROUND:
Name of applicant: Jeffery Palm
Address of Property: 126 20th Avenue North
Present Zoning: R -1 -A
Nature of Request: A 4 1/2 foot side yard variance
Reason for Request: to construct a 20'x22' garage.
The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage
to the south side of his home. The new garage will be 3 1/2
feet from the south lot line. The ordinance requires an 8
foot side yard setback.
The applicant is requesting this variance because of the
topography of his lot. The rear of the lot abutts the pond
on Shady Oak Road. His house is at an elevation of
approximately 940, and the pond elevation is approximately
920. The applicants rear yard has approximately a 20 foot
grade incline.
The applicant did have a garage on the rear of the lot.
This garage was removed because the foundation deteriorated
due to run -off created by the slope of the lot.
There is no access to the lot from the rear because of the
pond. If there was such access, a garage might be able to
be placed in other locations.
Most garages in the neighborhood are at the house elevation
and at a setback comparable to the subject garage. The
neighbor to the south has a detached garage 9 feet from the
lot line and his home is 19 feet from the lot line. The
neighbor has no objection to the proposed garage.
No.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has no objection
to the placement of the garage.
ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the variance because
of the topography of the lot. Putting a garage in the rear
would require diverting alot of water from its natural path.
I talked with the Inspection Department about the
possibility of constructing a garage in the rear of the lot.
They stated that it could be possible but that location
would not be desirable because of the drainage situation.
Another alternative would be to build up the garage in the
rear to the level of the home. The Building Inspector
stated that this alternative would also not be desirable.
The concrete block needed to build up the garage would
essentially be a retaining wall. It seems the applicants
best spot for a garage is attached to his home.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance. By granting the variance
the applicant will be able to construct the garage
as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. If you choose this alternative
the applicant will have to try to construct a
garage at the rear of the property.
3. Continue for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Alternative #1. The following
are _ suggested Findings of Fact should the Commission
recommend approval.
1. A unique circumstance exists due to the pond in
the rear of the lot. This prohibits access from
that side of the lot.
2. A hardship exists due to the topography of the
lot. Putting the garage at a lower elevation than
proposed could potentially result in foundation
damage from storm run -off.
Respectfully submitted,
afi: cvithAc
Nancy B'.Anderson
Community Development
Analyst
D (4)
E (5)
F (6)
G (7)
H (8)
1 (9)
1
0'7).", —
(78) 3
4
(79) 5 M
(89) 1
(31)•'4
5 p
(93) -6 - r ,
7
(94) . 8
— 9
(95) 10
(96) I1 1
(97) 12
Iief1 4
� 113
1ST STREET NO.
(5 1
(56) 3
(57) 4
(58) 5
071) 13 0
1
T612
<o
tt84)- M
105) 5
(10 6) 6 N
(107) 7 2
(108) 8
(109) 9
CS -12 co
{+I : -)
?III)(
15 13
19O
17 (33)
15 (31)
3104
30(14
0) 26(
25(139)
+rr —
1
(34) 2
065) 3
4
(37) 5 N
b 16 (32)
(24) 8 z.
• 31(164) i4L1
30 2
29 (163) (146) 3
M 28(16 (147) 4 'o
:76(160 5 '' (14 6 rr�
▪ 25(160) (149) 7
24 _ (150) 8
ti 23(1 59 ) _ '_
22 (151)10 N
(152) I I
12
41
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause . an undue hard -
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship: r . i i z &.,�, , µ.. de4a .. ¢.o ar/ied ur , . i0cc
-4 t-c- 444
04 e 44+44..,4 c.,
•
Conditions B.
MOW—
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
/1) -14 u ��owxe��� ,eto oµ .. a ,coQa.a- e �.�BaarG.
Gam 1/G �u -.w /xo-
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of
b Ro
t a
0,04‘. - 1- 4 0C) .
k.�,5 i`) ,.k., S53ti-3
Z� /16. .A
,7U/ < //t/--
1 //4-14-427-7,
neighbors contacted.
/33 .ot 'J .
Yt,t . s s./3
t o
,s4cZ a,444,00.-7t
4.77 ..z4g C o- e,.2cri.