CC 03-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. '... Minutes of Regular Counci I Meeting Page two March 8, 1982 In discussion, Oliver explained that the steep roof slope Is intended to accept solar panels to the south; would not contribute to added height. It was explained that the original front setback variance was requested base~ on a survey which did not plot the tree locations; noted that the modified "staggered plan" is a more attractive home than the original plan, and has been shortened (2000 sq. ft.l- all floors); feels the 30' setback would be too close to the road. Hollenhorst moved, seconded by Johnson, that Counci I approve the 6 foot height variance as requested, subject to receipt of written notification of approval from neighbor to the north. In further discussion, concern was expressed relative to compatl- . billty of the proposed height with surrounding low-profile homes. It was noted that City ordinance dmes not require that a home be compatible with adjacent homes. It was further noted that a home could be designed within the height limitations of the ordinance, and In accord with the existing neighborhood homes. Motion carried (Hollenhorst, Johnson, MeAl I ister, Hicks voting In favor of the motion; Woodburn voting in opposition). (4-1) It was Council's understanding that Mr. Oliver will obtain the w r I tten statement f rom the north ne I ghbor, an d w II I P I ant trees In the area between the property line to the north and the high portion of the house to soften the height. Case No. 82-2, Side Setback Variance for Gara~e - 3167 Lake Jo~anna Boulevard, Michael Egelston Counci I was referred to transparencies of documentation submitted in support of the application for sldeyard setback variance of 3' for an attached garage, (5' required) and to the Board of Appeals report (2/28/82) and Planning Commission Minutes (3/3/82). Miller explained that the proposed attached garage wi II also require an aggregate sldeyard variance of 8 ft. (total required sldeyard is IS' in the R-2 District). In review of the lot and surrounding area, Mi Iler noted that the subject lot is 51' In width (standard lot in R-2 Is 85'); house to the south Is set back 25' from the side property line, and house to the north Is set back 15' from the side property line which provides adequate separation between homes; noted that the south neighbor has submitted a statement approving the garage relocation as proposed. Miller explained that it Is the applicant's Intention to move the existing garage from the rear of the lot to Its proposed location and attach it to the house, Jutting about 7'_8' beyond the front of the house to accommodate existing windows in the house; garage dimensions are 16' x 20' and, as sited, wil I not encroach on the required 40' ftont setback. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances. Applicant Egelston said the garage Is in good condition; desires to relocate it as proposed for the following reasons: . I. reduce the length of the driveway which Is very long and narrow, 2. open the rear yard for better utilization as a play area for young chi Idren, away from the traffic on Lake Johanna Boulevard. Johnson moved, seconded by Hicks, that Councl I yard setback and 8' aggregate sldeyard setback (Case No. 82-2). Motion carried unanlmou:S:ly. approve the 3' slde- variances as requested. ( 5-0) -2-