PL MINUTES 07201982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Mr. Parkins disputed Mr. Bjorklund's assumptions saying he couldn ' t • see how five additional feet on the garage would increease the potential for illegal use of the building which the City could easily prevent in the first place. He insisted the only reason he wanted to expand the garage was to get needed storage space and not to increase the value of his property. Mr. Zawislak believed the fact that. the Parkins were not going to build on the front of their home because of the adverse effect it might have on their neighbors should justify let- ting them build to the rear of the property, to which Mr. Bjorklund responded that he doubted this was the main reason the addition is proposed for the rear of. the existing garage since, if the addition were built in front, two windows on the house would have to be removed, and as Mr. Parkins had indicated, the project would cost much more. Noone else .appeared to speak for .or against the variance and the hearing was closed at 8: 57 P .M. M.r. Peterson said he can sympathize with the Parkins ' need for additional. garage space. Mr. Bowerman views this as a relatively minor request compared to some others which have been granted recently . He believes the Commission might ,be causing a hardship for the applicants if they are not permit- ted to provide the space they need at a minimal cost. He pointed out that no opposition from the neighbors had been demonstrated during the hearing and is certain any potential illegal uses of the property • are controllable under existing City ordinance. Mr. Bjorklund indicated he would oppose- granting a variance he con- siders would be only an inconvenience , and not a hardship for the Parkins., if not granted. He pointed out that the proposed garage will be the same size as the house and said he could see no reason to grant a variance when the addition could be built five feet shorter without a variance. He was still concerned that the size of the structure might invite its use for manufacturing or light industrial purposes; the storage of -more than the permitted amount of petroleum products ; or for some type of living arrangement. Mrs. Makowske said with automobiles downgraded to 18 - foot lengths , she believes a four car garage could easily be provided in a 43 foot long addition and she has failed to see where the conditions set for grant- ing a variance of this type had been satisfied for this request. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and .seconded by Mr. Peterson to recommend Council approval of a five foot variance to the City Zoning Ordinance rear yard setback requirements which would allow the construction of a 22 foot wide by 24 foot long garage addition, as proposed by Mr. and Mrs . Walter Parkins , 20 feet from the rear lot line of the property described' as Lot 11 , Block 5 , Moundsview Acres Second Addition, find- ing that: (.l) five feet is a relatively minor variance to be granted in the light of the need that has been demonstrated; (2) the variance • would not appear to create a hardship or have an adverse impact on abutting properties ; but, (3). would instead permit an economically better method of construction for the addition.