1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HOAI:U OP AI)JIIS'I'WN'I' - M.inutea January 20, 1-qL44 Page 2 2) , Ot lir..ra In Lilo area have real lcinad idL lihea in a ai.reilar tawhioit. 3) . Other lots in area are as small as the proposed change would create. 4) . Lot #.1 after the land transfer would be a buildable lot not requiring locational variance for a residence. CONCLUSION: • 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. 3) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. Motion carried. #1225. Harvey/Miller grant a variance of 10 feet from required right side yard: FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Additions are to an existing nonconforming building. 2) . Additions will not make the building more nonconforming. 3) . Proposed additions could not be constructed without the variance. 4) . No objections were raised. CONCLUSION: 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #1226. Salmon/Kruschke to grant a variance of 41 feet from the required setback from STH 19 with the condition that the canopy shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improvement requires additional right- of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Location and design of canopy will not create a traffic hazard. 2) . Gas pumps and islands are permitted 12 feet from right-of-way but cannot have a canopy without a variance. 3) . Canopies are being installed at most gas stations. CONCLUSION: 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3) . Variance is contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #1227. Harvey/Krushcke hold in abeyance until February meeting. There is a possibility that some change in right-of-way could be arranged. Motion carried. APPEALS HELD IN ABEYANCE: #1213.r Stehr - Westport ; Kruschke/Schwahn to deny the sideyard variance. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . This is an entirely new home; other complying accesses could have been provided. 2) . There was ample room on the lot to provide a complying design for the r sidence. 3) . Required zoning inspections which would have disclosed the problem, were not requested. I CONCLUSION: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried.