1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HOARD oP AI),1IIS'I'MI?N'i' (wldhrd 1'1114 Pair 5 U 'hi 1 I t.N_ a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. h) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. ')-O. ({1304. Miller/Schwalm grant a variance of 6 feet more or less from required left side yard granted. FINDING OF PACT: 1) . Existing utilities, sewer, gas and well preclude complying location. 2) . Existing garage located in the same location was destroyed when a tree fell on it. CONCLUSION! a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. 5-0. #1305. Krushchke/Schwahn to hold in abeyance pending inspection of the site; motion carried. 5-0. #1306. Miller/Kruschke deny; applicant or agent did not appear at the public hearing; motion carried. 5-0. #1307. Schwahn/Miller grant a variance from the requirement that evergreen shrubs or decorative wall or fence be planted or maintained on the lot lines adjacent to a resdiential district; FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The property has substantial natural vegetation, bushes and trees along the lot lines adjacent to the residential areas said growth does and excellent job of screening. 2) . A clear-cut area or low growing bushes ekterlding 20 feet or so extending from the frontage road.back along the driveway access would assure driver visibility when entering traffic. CONCLUSION: a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. c) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. 5-0. #1308. Krushchke/Schwahn to grant a variance of 12 feet more or less from the required setback and a variance of 5 feet more or less from required side yard: FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The 17 foot drop from road into the lot would require a garage to be located more centrally on the lot to provide a suitable grade for the driveway. 2) . Said driveway would require a substantial amount of fill and could still be impassible at times during the winter, 3) . Narrow lot frontage and existing residence limit possible locations for the garage (P°1 CONCLUSION: a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. 5-0.