CCP 10-27-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' 1153 Benton '.-I a v , Hunter-Is Park, Sheldon Br-aate.n fl/It Planner explained the request for several VaLia~ces due to a p:O?0Se~ a1dition at 1153 Benton Way, Hunter's Park. He briefly reviewed the special lot sizes in I this PUD development under Special Use Permit, Miller advised the approximately one year ago the SUP was revised to allow for additions to be placed on homes in this area and if variances were required normal City procedures would have .. to be followed. He stated that prior to applying to the City for variances residents must seek approval from the Architectural and Environmental Committee of Hunter's Park) and approval of the two adjacent neighbors of the applicant. (see letter from A & E Committee of'Hunter's Park (9-15-86) gra~ting approval). I Planner advised Council the Variances requested are: ~ 1. A 10 ft. Variance from Rearyard Setback requirements. (20 ft. provided, 30 ft. required in an R-2 District) 2. A 4 ft. Variance from Sideyard Setback requirements. C1 ft. provided. II 0 5 ft. required) 3. A 7~ Lot Coverage Variance (657. lot coverage is allowed; Miller pointed out the lots in Hunter's Park are 557. of standard single family lot size) I Council was referred to Board of Appeals Minutes ((10-30-86) recommending denial of all three variance requests, based on concern for fire safety and visual impact due to separation of only 7 feet from the home to the south. I Council was referred to Planning Commission Minutes (11-5-86) recommending approval of lot coverage and rearyard setback variances. Hiller noted the Commission concerns regarding the sideyard variance, however. after much I discussion and negotiation with the applicant Planning Commission recommended a sideyard variance of 3 feet rather than 4 feet, also stating no portion of the . addition could be closer than 10 feet to the adjacent home to the south. Ie Planner displayed a drawing of the proposed addition which meets the Planning Commission contingencies, submitted by Sheldon Braaten. I Sheldon Br~aten, 1153 Benton Way, advised the drawing he submitted does meet the requirements set forth by the Planning Commission and he feels comfortable with the addition as revised. I Hansen moved. seconded by Sather, that Council approve Case No. 86-35, with the following conditions: I 1. Sideyard Setback Variance being 3 feet. 2. No portion of the house being within 10 feet of the neighboring house to the south. I 3. Rearyard Setback Variance of 10 feet, which increases the Lot Coverage above the acceptable limit, requiring a 7X coverage variance, and such approval is based on recommendation of the Homeowners Association of Hunter's Park and the changes the applicant has negotiated. I In discussion, Hicks was concerned about the impact of the proposed addition on the neighbor to the south; maintaining a 10 ft. building separation leaves no I room for expansion to that neighbor. He feels Braaten's addition is nice looking, only opposes limitations placed on the neighbor. He asked Braaten if he knew who the dissenting vote on the A & E Committee was. I Braaten stated they do not receive that information, pointing out that it could have been anyone in the Hunter's Park development and not necessarily a neighbor. .. Motion carried. (Hansen. Sather and Peck voting in favor; Hicks opposed) (3-1) ,-- I