02/01/94 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

10. ll. i2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. That co ,nstruc6on of thc accessory structure/n a manner that meets thc thoroughfare setback will rv.q '~.~ire removal of mature tree growth and thc addition of a substantial amount of fill. That thetsubject property is entitled to a total o£ 2,064 square feet of garage and accessory building ispacc; that thc total area of thc existing accessory structures and proposed StrUCrLZre is 1,950 ~uare feet. That there is a substantial amount of mature tree growth on the subject property that will screen ttie proposed accessory structure from C.S.A.H. #57. That the ~Applicant has stated that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. That the~ are unique circumstances applying to the subject property that do not generally apply to ~other properties in the district; namely, that additional setback requirements are imposed ion properties abutting thoroughfares and there is a sharp decline in topography beyond t~e 110 foot setback from C.S.A.H. #57. That the ,Special conditions causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the Applicant. That suchvariance is necessm-y for the preseveafion of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the R-1 Rural Residential District, namely achieving the amouiat of allowable accessory structure space established by City Code for a parcel this size. That if grimted, the variance will not grant the Applicant any special privilege that is denied to other owners of lands, structures or buildings m the same district. That if,gl:anted, the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the R~mge3 :Zoning Chapter or other property in the R-1 Rural Residential District. That ff gr~ ted, the variance will not substantially inc/-ease the congestion of public streets, or incre~e the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially impair property q, alues within the neighborhood. That the location of the south property line of the subject property is in dispute. The motion for tti. e adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member Bawden and upoa vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ChairpersOn Terry Hendriksen Board Meimber David Bawden Board Mei'nber Charles I.m.Due Board Me~nber Ben Deemer Board Me~nber Paul Holland Board Metnber Michael Terry Board Me~nber Bradley Thorud and the following !voted against the same: None and the following abstained: None q