CC 05-14-1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, May 14, 1984 Page Three . Miller noted that the lot created will be substandard (11,000 S.F.); noted that no additional building sites are being created; no inaease in density will occur and there will be no change in the appearance of the property; noted that if the house were removed, and the lot not subsequently consolidated with an adjacent lot, a house could be built on the lot, within the required setback. In discussion, Hicks queried the possibility of consolidating this lot now; this would eliminate the substandard lot, which he feels is preferable to the 11,000 S.F. lot. Miller noted that this would put two structures on one lot, which is also non-conforming; noted that a bond was suggested, but it didn't seem logical or workable. Miller noted that the City cannot demand that limits be placed on the lot, but City could accept the limits, if proposed by the applicant. Mulcahy asked if the applicant has agreements for the two consol- idations. Ashbach said he does. Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council approve the minor subdivision as outlined (Case No. 84-9). Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Case No. 84-12, Minor Subdivision Ruth Dic erson-Kre~s, 1676 Chatham Avenue Mtller explained that the two lots are owned by the applicant; explained that a lot line adjustment is requested which will make the rear lot line width of the two lots about equal; explained that because of the terraced grading, the easterly lot has a very small usable rear yard; noted that Lot 6 is currently vacant. Miller explained that the proposed adjustment will reduce the westerly lot to about 77' at the building line (currently is about 80'); noted that the Chatham' PUD permits lots below 11,000 S.F. and lot widths of 75'; proposal will increase Lot 9 to 13,700 S.F. and reduce Lot 6 to 11,098 S.F.; buildinq envelope of Lot 6 will exceed that of many of the lots in the subdivision. Mr. Kreps explained that Lot 6 is the lowest lot; others terrace down to Lot 6. Kreps said they want a bigger back yard for Lot 9. . Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy that Council approve the minor subdivision as requested. Motipn carried unanimously. (5-0) Case No. 84-10, Front Setback Variance for an enclosed 12' x 10' entrance addition. Miller explained that a variance from the prevailing 50' front setback is requested; noted that basically the homes are at about 50' setback; reported that the Board of Appeals recommends approval of the variance; reported that the Planning Commission concluded that it was difficult to identify a prevailing setback; recommends that the prevailing setback does not apply; therefore, a variance is not needed. Hicks reported that the Planning Commission wrestled with finding a hardship on which to base approval of the variance; feels the Commission would have recommended approval of the variance. Vander Wyst and Miller concurred that the Vander Wyst house is very close to the 50' setback. Miller noted that the proposed addition will not encroach on the required 40' front setback. Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council concurs with the Planning Commission that a variance is not needed; a prevailing setback has not been defined. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) (variance fee to be refunded).