1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HOAIIl OE WHSTMI'N'I' - Minutes Juno :'H, 1984 i`nv;n 1 41266. Ha rvcy/Schwalni amend petition to a 3' variance from the required left side yard; motion carried. Harvey/Schwahn approve as amended. FINDING OF F1CT: 1. was platted in the era when 2 story houses were the common design. Plat does not accommodate even a reasonably sized ranch style building. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interes . Motion carried. #1267. Schwahn/Miller to deny. FINDING OF FACT: • 1. Adequate area is available to lcoate an addition or an unattached access►ry building without the necessity of a variance. CONCLUSION: 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #1.268. Harvey/Miller to hold in abeyance and request applicant to try and re- design with as little variance as possible. Motion carried. • #1269. Schwahn/Harvey to grant requested variances contingent upon approval of C-1 Zoning. Motion carried. #1270. Harvey/Schwahn to grant a variance of 4.1 foot from required right sid- yard contingent upon approval of R-3A Zoning; motion carried. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Deck replaces old deteriorated deck and is no closer to side line. 2) . Deck is only entry to the right side duplex unit, any steps or stoop would also require a variance. 3) . Area has commonplace nonconformity of locational requirements. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interes . Motion carried. #1271. Schwahn/Miller hold in abeyance; request applicant to submit engineeriig report; motion carried. VARIANCE PETITIONS - Held in Abeyance: • #1227. Badger Expediting/Liddicoat - Blooming Grove. Miller/Harvey to grant a variance of 0.57 foot (6.8") from required setback from Severson Drive. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Zoning Ordinance provides for a reduced setback from the long side of a • corner lot. The logic is that one required front• setback.has already 1 been complied with and provided. Requiring an equal setback on both frontages of a corner lot places the corner lot at a disadvantage when compared to interior lots which have only one required front setback.