Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING <br />plan by removing the front porch and <br />(2) feet closer to the right-of-way, <br />feasible thereby allowing use of the <br />building plan provides for a 28 foot <br />on the site. The property owner has <br />reducing the size of the dwelling to <br />variance request, however, due to the family size, this option <br />was rejected. <br />DECEMBER 13, 1993 <br />positioning the house two <br />soil corrections appears <br />lot as a building site. The <br />wide home to be constructed <br />considered the option of <br />eliminate the need for a <br />The Building Inspector has reviewed the site and would concur <br />that this is a reasonable use of the property provided soil <br />corrections are made and soil borings obtained. A visual <br />inspection of the site suggests that there would be no <br />site/visibility problems with the intended construction. The <br />adjoining property owners have signed a letter indicating no <br />objections to the proposed variance request and the excavator has <br />stated that he believes soil correction is possible. The <br />property owner has asked that the City review the variance <br />request prior to the expenditure of additional costs for the soil <br />borings. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed this variance request <br />and recommended approval with the determination that the <br />following findings of fact are valid in regard to this property: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable <br />use if used under conditions allowed by the official <br />controls. <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances <br />unique to the property not created by the landowner. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations <br />alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms of the ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the <br />applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this <br />ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the <br />same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or <br />impair established property values within the neighborhood. <br />6. That the proposed action will be in keeping with the spirit <br />and intent of the ordinance. <br />"Council Member Bergeson asked if the total distance from th"e <br />house to the existing street is greater than 23 feet. Ms. Wyland <br />PAGE 5 <br />34► <br />