My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-185
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/4/2007 10:41:02 PM
Creation date
2/27/2007 4:13:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
.Page 2 <br />VN-185 <br />would obviously be a hardship situation. This hardship,.howe~-er, <br />is one. that was created by the applicant and not by the ordin3:~ce., <br />It is also.dfficult to imagine-circumstances. so unique to war~a-:~ <br />a.`larger building than permitted by ordinance. <br />Two factors supportive. of the request are ghat the old tin she3 <br />still located on the property wili,be removed in the near-future <br />and secondly, the applicants have submitted a petition signed <br />by all of the `immediately effected property owners indicating <br />no object-ion to the request. <br />In summary, the partially constructed shed-patio. is attractive, <br />well screened and supported by adjacent property owners. There <br />'appear`to be items: that would mitigate the impact of the variance <br />but warrants for. approval are difficult to find. <br />We w~~u1d also :note that the applicants will be bringing photoc_a~: <br />to the.Planning=Commission and Council meetings. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />The basic alternatives for consideration include: <br />1. Approval of the variance - In light of the ordinance <br />`requirements and standards fora variance staff does not <br />think-the request is warranted. <br />2. Denial of the variance -•Suchan action would require t:~e <br />applicant to remove or remodel the partially constructed <br />shed-patio. Cne` alternative the applicant would .have. wo~~ld <br />• be to connect this new accessory building to the existi^? <br />house. This would not only require additional constructec:: <br />in terms of distance between the two structures but woul~ <br />also require the proper footings under the new concrete - , <br />slab. If the connection, were made the structure would ^c <br />longer be considered an accessorybuilding. <br />STAFF RECOMMENI,h~TION <br />Staff recommends that VN-185 be denied by waiving the reading-and <br />adopting the attached resolution.: At their .meeting of .May 22nd <br />the Board of Review adopted by a 3-2 vote the attached resolution <br />No, 78-14, recommending denial of VN-185. The full minutes 'for <br />this item are~also attached. <br />., <br />°" ~'7t <br />.times F, Winkels, City Planner _ <br />E ~ `'~ ~ f <br />. .. ~ :~ <br />Gary.. L. Hunt, City Manager <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.