CCP 05-11-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 6, 1987 Page 5 . CASE NO. 87-11; There was discussion relative to placement of the home (CONTINUED ) in relation to the adjacent existing homes. Kim Tramm, applicant, advised he had no problem with establishing the front setback of the proposed home in line with the corners of the adjacent existing homes. Zehm moved, seconded by Petersen, that Commission recommends to Council approval of the Minor Subdivision and associated Lot Width Variance, Case No. 87-11, Oak Avenue, Kim Tramm, based on the following: 1. The large lot size compensates for the narrow frontage. 2. A flexible building envelope exists on the new lot. 3. Standard setbacks can be be provided. 4. No negative impact on adjacent properties is evident. Furthermore, approval is subject to the front setback line of the proposed home not exceeding the front setback line on the two adjacent property owners existing homes. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CASE NO. 87-12; Planner Miller reviewed his memorandum dated 4-10-87 SETBACK VARIANCE relative to the Front Setback variance and gave a NO. OF LK.JOHANNA brief background of the minor subdivision previously approved by Council. . Miller noted the applicant's primary rationale for reducing the setback from the west lot line relates to the steep slope at the rear of the lot. He noted that if the 40 ft. setback is enforced, the rear of the house will be at the base of the slope; to avoid drainage problems and create a usable rear yard, moving the house west is considered desirable. Commission members were referred to the Board of Appeals minutes (4-23-87) recommending approval of the variance, based on the fact that without the variance, the home would have little or no rear yard. Planner Miller noted for Commission members that the Variance request was only for this parcel, not for the adjacent lot as shown in his memorandum. Mark Anderson, applicant, advised that the other parcel, adjacent to the south of his property, will be purchased by a friend. Anderson stated that the prospective owner has not developed a house plan for the parcel, therefore, only the variance for Anderson's lot is being requested at this time. He also advised that he had worked with an architect to determine where the home would be best situated on the lot so that it would not affect the drainage pattern and be compatible the the proposed home on the adjacent southerly lot. The Planner identified the building envelope on the southerly adjacent lot and noted that the existing homes to the south of the two vacant parcels are approximately 10-15 ft. from the access easement. Member Babcook stated he did not see a hardship; noted the Planner commented . that the lot is buildable without granting a variance. Other members did not agree; Petersen stated the slope of the land is justification of hardship.