My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCAgenda_94Apr13
FalconHeights
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda Packets
>
199x
>
1994
>
CCAgenda_94Apr13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2010 11:29:15 AM
Creation date
11/12/2010 11:29:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
02/23/94 17:23 1T812 337 5601 DSU, INC. 4004 /005 <br /> WigerNariances 2128194 8 <br /> Although some area residents have indicated they do not object to the project and <br /> encourage property improvements, there have been objections raised by some <br /> neighbors over the encroachment into the rear yard, especially since the yards are <br /> tight now, and the proposed addition and garage are both two stories tall. <br /> Conclusion <br /> The criteria for considering variances in §9 -15.03 Subd. 4 include consideration of the <br /> effect on property values and whether there is a hardship with the lot in question because <br /> it is substantially different from other properties in the same zoning district. In our opinion, <br /> the significant encroachment on the rear yard would have a negative effect on <br /> surroundng properties, and we find that there are neighboring lots of similar size and <br /> shape which have not encroached on the rear yards. The rear yard variance request is <br /> due to decisions by the owner and not to something inherent in the property. Also, the <br /> applicant needs to demonstrate that he cannot meet the ordinance standard without <br /> causing a hardship. It has not been shown that expanding the house to the south (where <br /> no variance would be needed) would create a hardship_ The rear yard variance, <br /> therefore, is not justified. <br /> If expansion to the south is considered, there is as much lot area available on the side as <br /> there is for the proposed addition to the rear. In other words, there would be no penalty in <br /> square footage for choosing to go south instead of west. The attached sketch, Available <br /> Lot Area, shows that the proposed addition covers about 546 square feet of lot, whereas <br /> the available lot area to the south within the setbacks is almost 600 square feet. There is <br /> also additional lot area within the setbacks to the north of the existing house about 150 <br /> square feet that could be used as well. The applicant says he has considered these <br /> options, but we are not convinced that a design professional has exhausted all the <br /> possibilities. In our experience, the difficulties cited by the applicant can usually be <br /> overcome by an experienced designer. <br /> The side yard variance request for the garage is necessary to avoid a hardship, we <br /> believe, because a two -car garage of adequate width and depth can be considered a <br /> necessity in today's world. The effect on the side yard is Tess than the effect on the <br /> existing house if the new garage were to be located further south toward the house. The <br /> side yard variance, therefore, is justified. <br /> ATTACHMENTS: <br /> A Location Map <br /> B Property Owner's Statement <br /> C Site Plan <br /> D Available Lot Area <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.