CCAgenda_94May25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC Minutes 3/28/94 Page 2 sideyard and, therefore, the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance. Salzberg moved to recommend that the city council deny the Wiger's request for a variance to Chapter 9 -4.01 Subd. 4 of 15' 3" to the required 30 foot rearyard setback for the following reasons: 1. The property owner did not demonstrate a hardship in order to have a variance granted. 2. Any past variances granted by the city, and any building or site improvements that do not conform to the city's zoning code, do not create a hardship for a property owner requesting a variance, and therefore, are not a reason for granting a variance. Although there are some existing structures which encroach into the rear yard further than the 30 foot rear yard setback along this block with the shallow Tots, the city records do not show that any variances were granted for this purpose. No additions appear to be two stories in height. Two building permits for rearyard additions were found in the files. 3. A property owner's preference for how the interior space is arranged in a home or how the exterior of a home is designed are not identified as a hardship standard for granting a variance. If a variance was the only way to preserve the architectural or historical significance of a structure, this might meet the standards for granting a variance. The proposed addition of a two story attached garage to this two story home will change the exterior appearance and symmetry of the structure. 4. A fence, even a six foot high fence, or a tall hedge, will not eliminate the impact of a two story garage and house within fourteen feet of the neighboring property to the west because the addition will be substantially higher than the fence or landscaping. 5. The variance request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. Additional specific points in the discussion included that: