04/11/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 3 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The size of the existing home met minimum standards, but an addition to a two - bedroom house was not unusual, nor was putting bedrooms over garage space. The design incorporated the existing structure layout to maximize use of the existing structure. Current housing space demands typically require more than 1000 sf, and it seemed unreasonable to require the second story to step back from the lower level wall. Pie - shaped lots on cul -de -sacs present special challenges, though they were not unique. For some reason, this house was built closer to the road than current standards allow. If the house were further back, the variance need would be reduced. As it stands, the variance was needed only for the front 13± feet of the new addition. That is, the new addition would meet the 10 ft. setback at a point 13± feet to the rear of the existing garage corner. It was not a situation where the variance application was an attempt to avoid extra costs. Economic considerations were not at issue here. Staff recommended approving the variance request. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicant stated he had no comments to make. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was an indication if the neighbor to the east was also falling inside the setbacks on the front side. He asked if there any indication this was a previous zoning issue. Mr. Smyser replied he had checked in the ylat files as well as the address file and there was no indication as to why it was done this way. Mr. Rafferty asked with respect to cul-de-sacs could this be an ongoing problem in the future. Mr. Smyser responded if the home would have been built now it would not be allowed to be built where it was located, but he did not believe this would be an ongoing issue. Mr. Corson asked if applicant had spoken with the Minnesota Fire Marshall with respect to a fire wall. He stated that needed to be clarified with the City before proceeding. Mr. Smyser replied that would be something that would be reviewed by the Building Inspector prior to building approval. Mr. Lyden asked if the roof line was consistent. Mr. Smyser stated it was. Mr. Smyser stated this would go to the City Council for approval on April 23, 2001. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the application for a variance from the side yard setback requirement, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.