CCP 04-13-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting, April 1, 1987 Page 5 . VARIANCES Martin expressed concern with recommending approval of the (Cont'd) side yard variances; stated it would perpetuate the problem in the area and set a precedent for new construction. Petersen disagreed and noted this is common with lakeshore property that was platted prior to the current zoning requirements. Zehm advised that the City cannot deny building on a lot of record. Curtis noted that the existing building would not meet current setback requirements~ Planner commented that Martin's point is well taken; he agreed with Zehm that the City cannot deny building on the lot, unless the lot is substandard. Savage moved, seconded by Petersen, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case No. 87-09, the Variance request for a 5 foot front yard setback and a 5 foot side yard setback at the south property line. In discussion, Martin questioned recommending approval of the side yard setback if it is not necessary; he did not see hardship rationale. Members asked what the setbacks were on the adjacent properties. Planner stated the home to the North is setback approximately 20 feet and the home to the south is setback approximately 40 feet. . Motion carried. (Savage, Petersen, Thorn, Meury, Zehm and Curtis voting in favor; Martin voted in opposition) (6-1) CASE NO. 87-07; The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Deputy Clerk SUP INST. HSING Iago verified the publication of the Notice of Hearing in 1830 W. CO. RD. New Bri~hton Bulletin, on Wednesday, March 18, and mailing E, H. SCHMIDT on February 26th. Planner reviewed his memorandum of 3/25/87 and background of property use. He advised that the City Attorney has determined the use could be considered under the Institutional Housing definition and, in the R-2 District, a Special Use Permit is required. Miller informed the members that neighbors have commended Mrs. Schmidt for her control of the rental activity, however, they have expressed strong concern that a new owner may not manage the rental use as well. Martin asked if the applicant had requested a SUP when she began renting to students. Planner stated that the property is not currently operating under a SUP and was not specifically built for that purpose. Helen Schmidt, applicant, stated that the house expansion was initially planned for accomodating her large family. When her family status changed, she began renting to students to maintain the mortgage payments on the property and was . unaware that a SUP was required. The house is now for sale and the potential buyer had requested she apply for a SUP. She stated the buyer had expressed the intention to use the home as a single family residence, as soon as it is financially feasible, however, he wanted to have the option of continuing the use for an indefinite period of time.