Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #: ~ <br /> <br /> REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; <br /> CASE OF ZITCO, INC. <br /> By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik <br />Background: <br /> <br />Lowell Zitzloff of Zitco, Inc. has submitted a request for variance to the rear yard setback <br />requirements at 6111 Hwy. #10 N.W. The following items are enclosed: <br /> <br />a) Site location map <br />b) Site plan <br />c) Proposed findings of fact <br />d) Proposed variance <br /> <br />Notification: <br /> <br />In accordance with State Statute, Staff notified property owners within 350 feet of the subject <br />property of the request for variance and public hearing. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Mr. Zitzloff is proposing to construct a multi-tenant retail building with some self-service mini- <br />storage units on Hwy. #10. There is also an accessory building that will provide additional mini- <br />storage units. The accessory building meets all setback requirements and the main building <br />meets all setback requirements except in the rear yard. The rear yard setback is 35 feet and the <br />building is proposed to encroach the rear setback on the west end by 7 feet and on the east end by <br />14.5 feet. <br /> <br />The applicant has stated that the undue hardship is a result of preserving an additional 20 foot <br />wide corridor (in addition to the 20 foot wide landscape requirement adjacent to HWY. #10) for a <br />possible future service road. Staff responds that preservation of a service road corridor ks not a <br />circumstance unique to the applicant's property; any other developing parcel on the nortl~"side of <br />HWY. #10 would be asked for the same consideration. Staff contends that the hardship is a result <br />of the applicant attempting to put too much building on the lot to facilitate mini-storage units in <br />addition to a retail center. If the number of mini-storage units were decreased, the setback could <br />be met and the applicant is left with a reasonable use of the property. <br /> <br />Recommcndntion: <br /> <br />City Staff recommends denial of the variance request. However, a proposed variance has been <br />draft in the event the Board adopts findings of fact that support approval of the request. <br /> <br />?/ <br /> <br /> <br />