Laserfiche WebLink
4' <br />n/Ioaands �Ae�w Plan�fn� C�rn�rai�$yon <br />Regular IVleefing I@�ay 19, �999 <br />Page 4 <br />e• TdraP the variance requesfed zs 1he mirrinaum vapiance wl�rch would alleviaPe the hardship. <br />Economic conditrons c�lone shall not be considered a hardship. <br />Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance req <br />He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observin the <br />be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be enc�i�h ar <br />� The va�iance would not be mate�ially detri <br />property in the same zone. <br />Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was io <br />that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet anc <br />th�-ee-season porch at the same setback, He noted; <br />be viewed as a more inienstve use of the snac� :>. <br />g. The proposed variance wrll nol rmp � <br />properly or substat�trally irrc�ease t��on1 <br />of frr-e or endanger the public s�t1' or <br />within the neighborhood. ���� <br />Ericson stated that he d�d���i��believ���t a <br />depr��e other residen�� o���ie right tL� �it 'a.n <br />ed <br />Ericson staied,tl��t' st� <br />subject pr ; �rty; ' ar�� ;:� <br />neighb , �� th adjaceni` <br />��e � � �osed constructi <br />AF\\�_.;:Y <br />til\ .` <br />��t�` �eterson opened� <br />the <br />alleu���� this hardship. <br />�tl�acks, it wouid only <br />;separation oiuses.' �-ie stated <br />i�l�ca��t wishes to construct the <br />��t � three-season porch could <br />���light and air to adjacent <br />�ets or increase the danger <br />or lmpair property values <br />the reduced side yard setback v�,ould <br />'�dfi ��i� �riteria lend flacinselves to subjective thought and requested the <br />iss�ai3�tev���u;�}��m to determine whether or not a hardship exists. <br />.i the required mailing to all residenis within 350 feet of the <br />o response. He stated that he had received a letter from a <br />houses north af the appticant, who stated tha� they approved <br />Puhiic Hearing at 7: i0 p.m <br />�����- ���F�o��s►�a���;�°�presentative of TimberCraft Remodeiing the appEicant's contractor, stated that <br />t�� ����i��� ����lanned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He <br />stat�i,�;h�tt �ii�r,e the deck was already there, the appIicant had assumed he couid buiid a porcl� ir� the <br />sa�n� area. I�urlowski stated that vahen he and the applicant discodered thai the existing ci�ck v✓as <br />not in compliance with the City Code, they iooked at other options far placement af the deck. %Ie <br />siated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the eliminatian of one of the two <br />bedrooms locatec� t�tere. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as we�l as aesihetics, the poreh could <br />� <br />