Laserfiche WebLink
VI. - Cil11uLe, <br /> September 27, 1979 <br /> Page 5 <br /> #818. Motion` by Voges, second by Purcell to grant a 25 foot variance <br /> from required lot width for proposed "Lot #B" and a variance of 7,500 <br /> square foot from required lot area for both proposed lots A and B. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Re-aligned, new lots will have the same area as the existing <br /> lots. <br /> 2. Other properties in the area have been granted a similar variance. <br /> 3. This area is part of an older plat, lots are equal or less in <br /> area. Required minimum shoreland area will not provide protection <br /> as damage has already been done. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #819. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant request for with- <br /> drawal of appeal. Motion carried. <br /> #820. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 4 1/2 <br /> feet from required setback from Webb Avenue. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Setback compliance would require entry drive into other than street <br /> side of the garage. Said drive would require the removal of <br /> existing rhubarb, lilac bushes, fruit trees, etc. and generally <br /> disrupt the yard. <br /> 2. Many existing garages in this area face the street and have less <br /> than a 20 foot setback. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #821. Motion by Krushcke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 45 <br /> feet from the required setback from normal highwater line. Porch size <br /> will be restricted to 14 foot depth (front to back) by 26 feet wide and <br /> may not provide less than a 10 foot left side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Proposed construction is to replace existing dilapidated porch, <br /> no increase in size. <br /> . 2. Other residences in the area are closer to the waterline. <br /> 3. Proposed construction is not in the flood zone. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> d. Hardship is caused by the Ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br />