My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7D, Planning Case 10-007 - Variance at 1146 Waldon Place
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
06-14-10-R
>
7D, Planning Case 10-007 - Variance at 1146 Waldon Place
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 10:07:15 AM
Creation date
6/15/2010 8:04:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Variance at 1146 Waldon Place
General - Type
Planning Case 10-007
Date
6/14/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Reiff recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to add the <br />language "the plight of the land owner is due to the circumstances unique to the <br />property because there are no alternatives available to the property owner to <br />improve access to their home in a way that would not require a variance." <br />Commissioner Hames accepted the friendly amendment. <br />Commissioner Zimmerman accepted the friendly amendment. <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated the applicant has not proven hardship and this <br />is more a request that they want something. The applicants have a front door that <br />functions properly. The eight-foot encroachment is a lot for an arbitrary addition. <br />He stated he would be voting against this recommendation. <br />Commissioner Reiff stated the Commission should grant this variance because the <br />property is unique and functionally impossible for the property owner to create <br />any kind of improved entryway to their home. If this were a porch it would not be <br />an issue but because they are choosing to enclose this addition and make their <br />property more valuable it is before the Commission for approval. Given the fact <br />that numerous other properties encroach into the front yard setbacks there is no <br />reason this home should be singled out and not allowed to encroach into the <br />setback. <br />Chair Larson explained it is not the function of the Commission to approve a <br />variance to improve the value of a home. The ordinance was specific to open <br />porches because of a large demand for this type of structure within the City and it <br />is very specific to have it open. <br />Commissioner Reiff stated the variance process was a way for homeowners who <br />choose to do something beyond what the ordinance allows have the opportunity to <br />do so. <br />Chair Larson explained there were at least two additions already done to this <br />home that fit within the parameters of the zoning regulations. The Commission <br />needs to be careful about unmitigated additions into the setbacks. If the City finds <br />a need the zoning regulations and setbacks could be changed rather than keep <br />granting variances just to make houses bigger. Just to make a home bigger is not <br />the proper use of the variance procedure. <br />The amended motion was called to a vote. <br />The motion carried (5-2) <br />Ayes: Commissioners Holewa, Modesette, Reiff, Zimmerman, and Hames <br />Nays: Chair Larson and Commissioner Thompson <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.