03-02-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 4 • CASE #88-05 (Cont'd) Bergly stated the ends of the house, abutting the side yards, are not parallel with the side yard lines; therefore, although the farthest projecting point the side yard by two or three feet, the wall at the fmidpoint the hsofdoes the houseinfr is on actually 5 ft. inside the side yard setback line. The visual impact on the Pedestrian pathway would be lessened. Bergly recommended the applicant move the house to the south, for a 10 ft. setback, and the variance would be for two feet on the north side of the property. He noted that the variance would be house. only for the corner portion of the The Planner referred Commission to the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of 2/25/882 unanimously recommending approval of the requested variance. Kevin Bailey, applicant, advised the Commission members he had "down sized" the plans for his home, however, he tried to keep the house comparable with others in the area. He stated that he had received written approval from both the adjacent property owners. Bailey stated he would prefer to have the setback variance approved for both sides, rather than move the home to the south side of the lot. Member Martin expressed concern that a lot which has been recently platted is forced to request variances due to the lot dimensions; he stated this is not the fault of the applicant, rather the developer. • Member Malone commented that although the City does allow ers to lots in a platted area that are below required dimensions,dbutlstill havenalude sufficent building envelope, it is the policy of the City to advise the developer that no additional variances will be granted for home construction. It was Malone's opinion there was not an identifiable hardship and there is a sufficient building envelope without granting the variance. There was discussion relative to the placement of the proposed home on the lot; it was suggested that the house could be placed further back on the lot and the applicant could request a rear yard variance, the hardship being the shallow lot depth. Bailey stated he was concerned about the street appearance of the home if it were placed further back on the lot. Member McGraw commented that the application should be considered as it does not negatively impact the adjacent property owners; it was his opinion the shallow lot depth and shape of the lot could be a hardship considerations. There was discussion relative to whether or not a hardship was identifiable; some Commission members were of the opinion there is a sufficient building envelope to accommodate a home. Mov recommend to Council denial ofbCaseh#88s05, SideyardaSetbackhVariance, Lon Block 2, McClung Third Addition, Kevin Bailey, based on the io Lot 8, C determination there is no identifiable hardship of the land. Motion lfailed. (Zehm, Malone, Martin voting in favor; Curtis, McGraw and Probst opposed) (3-3 In discussion, Chairman Curtis stated the lot does not comply to depth ) requirements, and it is pie-shaped; he advised Commission he would be willing to entertain a motion for a rear yard setback variance, based on the rationale the lot depth is shallow and substandard.