Laserfiche WebLink
Iu1AIM ('I' Alrill:;TMrNT <br /> (Ictoher 2'■, 1(Itt4 <br /> I'oqt. 4 <br /> 41100 <br /> #1299. Miller/Harvey grant a variance of 7 feet more or less from required <br /> left side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Addition is to an existing nonconforming building which was permitted <br /> to have 0 feet side yard prior to 1976. <br /> 2) . Addition would he totally out of alignment if side yard compliance <br /> were required. <br /> 3) . Addition will not have any adverse affect on adjacent property. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> c) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1300. Schwahn/Kruschke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Division of property was intended to enhance saleability. <br /> 2) . Other alternatives in lot division would not require a variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1301. Miller/Harvey grant a variance of 22 feet more or less from the <br /> required setback from Jordan Drive and a variance of 3 inches from maximum <br /> permitted height. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Required setback would place garage into, the residence. <br /> 2) . Other garages in the area are as close to the road as the proposed <br /> setback. <br /> 3) . Height variance is necessary because of slope of garage slab to <br /> accommodate drainage. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> b) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1302. Harvey/Schwahn sustain the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator <br /> motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1303. Schwahn/Harvey grant a variance of 39 feet more or less from the <br /> required setback from CTH "JG" subject to the condition that the additions <br /> shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improvement requires add_- <br /> tional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Existing building is almost entirely within the required setback from <br /> road. <br /> 2) . Additions will not be closer to road than the existing building. <br /> 3) . Field inspection disclosed that additions will not cause a sight hazard <br /> on the highway. <br />