My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMin_94Apr13
FalconHeights
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
199x
>
1994
>
CCMin_94Apr13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2009 9:25:21 AM
Creation date
6/17/2009 11:03:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J~~ <br />Page 3 <br />Council Minutes <br />April 13, 1994 <br />Mr. Glen Olson, 1780 Asbury St., a neighbor to the rear of 1775 Asbury, indicated <br />to the council that he feels it would be detrimental to the value of his property and <br />also would encroach on his rearyard privacy. Mr. Olson's son, Mr. Ken Olson, was <br />also present and commented that he thought the code was set up with certain <br />setbacks for a reason and the city should adhere to the code's 30 foot rearyard <br />setback. <br />Mayor Baldwin reminded council that they should not look at the personalities <br />involved, they should look at the property. He also suggested the 30 foot rearyard <br />setback in the code may not be appropriate for that particular area of the city and <br />there were other homes in that area that have additions to the rear. Councilmember <br />Gibson Talbot remarked that council should look at the code rather than individual <br />requests. After further discussion, Councilmember Jacobs moved to deny the <br />variance and support the recommendation of the planning commission that <br />recommended denial of the variance as stated in the planning commission report <br />because it did not meet the hardship standards for granting a variance including the <br />following reasons: <br />1. The property owner did not demonstrate a hardship in order to have a <br />variance granted. <br />2. Any past variances granted by the city, and any building or site <br />improvements that do not conform to the city's zoning code, do not <br />create a hardship for a property owner requesting a variance, and <br />therefore, are not a reason for granting a variance. <br />Although there are some existing structures which encroach into the rear <br />yard further than the 30 foot rear yard setback along this block with the <br />shallow lots, the city records do not show that any variances were granted <br />for this purpose. No additions appear to be two stories in height. Two <br />building permits for rear yard additions were found in the files. <br />3. A property owner's preference for how the interior space is arranged in a <br />home or how the exterior of a home is designed are not identified as a <br />hardship standard for granting a variance. If a variance was the only way <br />to preserve the architectural or historical significance of a structure, this <br />might meet the standards for granting a variance. <br />The proposed addition of a two story attached garage to this two story home <br />will change the exterior appearance and symmetry of the structure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.