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