PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- -9,;e,�4L_e ) • Motion -by Councilman Sauer and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to ,deny, the .r.equest for a variance to the' Zoning'-Ordinance for a ten foot front yard setback,. which would allow the garage and deck additions -to the residence at .3416 Belden Drive to be constructed as proposed, . finding that, as did the Planning Board: 1 . . The .physical surroundings, shape and topographical -conditions. of the parcel of land involved does permit the garage front to be in line with the house, the only hardship being added foundation expense over that if .the lot were level . .2 . The adjoining properties have similar topographical conditions with garages attached to the house. 3. The City Ordinance does not create an unusual hard- ship. 4 . Homes on either side of Belden between 33rd and 34th Avenues are within the prescribed front yard setbacks. Motion carried unanimously. JThere was also clear opposition on the part of the Board and neighbors lto the duplex proposed to be built by Andrew P. Kocisak on the vacant • ,/ lot at approximately 2500 37th Avenue N.E. , Mr. Bjorklund said, be- cause of the proposal ' s gross inconsistencies with the City Zoning (. Ordinance. He said Board members were in agreement with the neighbors and staff that the lot is substandard and unsuitable for building, though a majority declined to 'go into the question of its develop- ment for a single family dwelling before such a proposal is made. The applicant was not present to address his request. Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Sauer to follow the recommendations of the Planning Board to deny the variances which would permit the construction of a duplex on Lot 32, Block 1 , Soo Line Addition, because of the gross inconsistencies in the pro- posal with the requirements set by the City Zoning Ordinance, finding as did the Planning Board that: no hardship can be shown to. have resulted from- City Action since 1) the applicant was not the owner of record when the lot was platted; and 2) there are no extenuating circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the same vicinity or zoning district. Motion carried unanimously. ;The Board representative then reported that body had seen the Penne Realty Company proposal to remodel the existing structure on the western portion of the Hedlund property on Silver Lake Road as con- forming to the conditions of the PUD under which it is zoned and had recommended: a public hearing be scheduled as soon as the condi- . tions for its-*development are met. Mr. Soth saw no problem with