09/23/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. . . Motion carried. Voting Yes: Shumway, Howell and Hendriksen. Peterson and LaDue. Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Deemer, Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners BOARD BUSINESS Case /12: Reauest For Variance From 'Location Of Accessory Structure' Requirements~. Case Of Mr . Tom Wa.del: Mr. Wadel was present requesting a variance to locate a proposed accessory structure in his front yard in front of his home at 16321 Hedgehog Street N.W. The proposed structure will be located approximately 60' from his front yard property line. Mr. Wadel is seeking the request in order to preserve a row of trees on his property. It will also cost less for blacktop driveway and electrical service to the building with the proposed positioning. The building size is 26'x40'; turning the building so it can be in rear or side yard will expose a 40' wall to the street. Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adopt Findings of Fact 0147 relating to Mr. Wadel's request for a variance from 'Location of Accessory Structure' requirements. (Please refer to findings of fact file for Findings of Fact 0147). Further Discussion: Commissioner Peterson inquired as to the building material type. Mr. Wadel replied that it would be masonite siding. Commissioner Hendriksen inquired as to past precedence set by Council regarding this type of variance request. Ms. Norris replied that Council approved a variance to location in 1985 because of severe slope of land; another request was approved but do not recall the conditions for the approval. Commissioner Deemer stated that this siutation is unique because the house is set back 90' from the front property line; normal required front setback is 40'; if the building is to extend 30' beyond the front line of the house, the building would still be 60' back from the front property line; if adjacent property is developed right at the front set back requirement, Mr. Wadel's accessory structure would still not extend in front of those building(s). Commissioner Hendriksen stated that he doesn't know if preserving trees is sufficient reason for granting the variance; might be better to grant variance on the basis that the principal structure is situated way beyond the normal setback. Commissioner Deemer stated that the original intent of the ordinance was to stop people from building garages in front of the house; setback in rural ares is 40'; 99% of the homes are built at the minimum setback in order to have a shorter driveway to surface and maintain and to keep costs for services from the street to a minimum. Ms. Norris stated that variances can't be granted unless there is a hardship or unique situation; the combination of trying to preserve trees and the abnormal setback of the house make for a unique situation. Mr. Wadel stated that the elevation at the front of the lot is 10'-12' higher than the street; house was built in middle of lot to avoid excavation costs; there is also a 6'-7' natural berm in the rear yard that would have to be excavated in order to place the accessory structure there. Amendment by Commissioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Deemer to amend Item #12 of the Findings of Fact to read as follows: 'That Mr. Wadel has September 23, 1986 Page 2 of 5