Laserfiche WebLink
June 13, 1984 <br />UN-234 <br />REMINGTON BUILDERS <br />PURPOSE <br />- To consider a request for a 16 foot variance for. a front yard setback. <br />BACKGROUND <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ZONING: <br />PRESENT USE OF SITE: <br />PROPOSED USE OF SITE: <br />SETBACK REQUIREMENT: <br />SETBACK REQUESTED: <br />PL-128: <br />CODE REQUIREMENTS: <br />Remington Builders; Clayton Buzzell <br />Lot 5, Block 1, Innsbruck North Silver Lake <br />(Generally the southwest corner of 14th <br />street. NW and 26th Avenue NW) <br />R-1, Single Family Residential <br />Single. Family Home Under Construction <br />Single Family Residence <br />30 Feet On All Street. Sides <br />14 Feet From The 26th Avenue NW Cul-de-sac <br />The plat for Innsbruck North - Silver Lake <br />Addition was adopted in the spring of 1'982.. <br />Section 4-040(c) states that any property <br />improved after August 21, 1981 must have a <br />side street setback of 30 feet. Therefore <br />the people platting Innsbruck North - Silver <br />Lake Additiona should have been aware of the. <br />30 foot setback requirement on .all street. <br />sides. PL-128 was approved with the condition <br />that the entrance to Lots 5 and 10 be off of <br />26th Avenue NW. (See attached plat) <br />Section 4-040, Setbacks <br />Section 8-230, Variance <br />PAST PLANNING COMMISSION & COUNCIL ACTION <br />On March 28, 1984 the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of VN-231 allowing for <br />three points of the house to extend into the <br />front yard setback 8 and 10 feet. (See <br />attached resolution) <br />On April 10, 1984 the City Council approved <br />VN-231 for a 10 foot street yard setback. <br />(See attached resolution) <br />APPLICANT'S RESPONSE <br />The attached letter from the applicant's attorney explains that the <br />original site plan drawing submitted for VN-231 did not show the complete <br />entry way, which now requires an additional six foot variance. The <br />letter further indicates that they feel the primary responsibility for <br />determining the amount of variance was not their.responsibi1ity but that <br />of the building official. Undue hardship for the applicant is- expressed <br />in the financial loss of the trusses which have already been ordered <br />for the home. The letter concludes with what the applicant feels are a <br />series of unique circumstances which led up to the now requested <br />additional variance. <br />