04/23/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE ~1: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROH NAXINUN REI6RT ALLOI/ANCE FOR ACCESSOR~ STRUCTURE; CASE OF NIl. ~FF ERIKSON By: Anne Norris, Community Development Director Background~ Mr. Jeff Erikson is requesting a variance from the maximum height allowance for a partially constructed accessory structure at 15270 St, Francis Blvd. N.W. Hr. Erikson originally applied for and was issued a building permit to construct a one-story garage (26' x 36') which was proposed to be consistent with the height allowance for accessory structures. Hr. Erikson has stated that during construction he revised his plans for this structure without first reviewing the revisions with the City's building department. Both Mr. Wirz and Mr. Erickson of City staff noticed the change in construction and issued a 'stop work order' to Mr. Erikson. The building permit was issued to Hr. Erikson using the yard facing St. Francis Boulevard as the front yard since the property address is St. Francis Boulevard. Section 170.015G of the City Code states that detached accessory structures on corner lots shall not project beyond the side yard setback requirements of the principal building. The structure is located approximately 40 feet from the right-of-way of 153rd Avenue N.W.; the required side yard setback for the subject property is 20 feet. The subject parcel is located in the B-1 Business District; the principal use of the property is residential. Section 170.015G of City Code states that all accessory structures shall not exceed 16 feet. Mr. Erikson is requesting a variance to this requirement as the proposed structure will be approximately 22 feet tall. For your information, enclosed are the following items: a) Application b) Site location map c) Building permit application dated December 22, 1986 d) Stop work order dated March 3, 1987 e) Proposed findings of fact f) Draft variance Observations: As you recall, the Commission tabled action on this and requested that the City Attorney review Mr. Erikson's request in order to clarify whether the structure should be considered in terms of residential or business zoning requirements. The City Attorney determined that even though the property is located in the B-1 Business district, the principal use of the property is residential. Therefore, Hr. Erikson's request should be considered as an accessory structure to a residential use. Mr. Erikson has commented that compliance with the height restriction would create a financial hardship for him. As you know, financial considerations alone cannot be considered a hardship in variance requests.