09-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requirement should be reconsidered. The problem for the Tussings is that, in the meantime, their project cannot proceed. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Livingston said the City would have a problem in the future with the 30-foot setback because few residents can remodel the front of their homes. Livingston asked Tussing about the cost of the proposed entry. Tussing responded he had spent more than $2,000 to date for the architect; the project will cost $25,000. Livingston said, speaking as an appraiser, the Tussings house will not appreciate by $25,000. The improvement will make the home more saleable and will add to the appearance. Livingston stated he was willing to recommend approval of the variance, although such approval may set a precedent. Zisla said, if the Commission recommends approval, the eaves should be included. Zisla asked for staff comments regarding design characteristics in an older community. Teague responded the 30-foot setback is standard throughout the area. Some special zoning districts with smaller lots may have a 25-foot setback. New Brighton is lenient about side yard and rear setbacks, which provides opportunities for additions to be built on the sides and rear. Schiferl commented in some areas of the City the houses are not aligned perfectly. Zisla asked Schiferl if the variance should be granted on those grounds. Schiferl responded he had difficulty with the variance, but he felt bad for the applicants. Zisla commented that the City must support its own standard. Baker stated that the City changed the corner side yard setback a few years ago. Baker stated he would support asking the Council to direct the Commission to reconsider setbacks. Livingston stated that is an issue separate from the Tussings’ request. O’Brien said the entry could be designed so the foundation does not exceed the setback by cantilevering it. Baker stated the Tussing addition may not conform to the ordinance if the eaves were taken into consideration. The Commissioners looked at the eaves on the plan. O’Brien stated the addition would probably conform with the requirement for the eaves. VN-235. Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF Zisla stated that Condition #6 should be changed to make it stronger. The precedent issue is relevant because the Commission must have legally supportable findings upon which to base its decisions. The decision cannot be based upon the applicant’s presentation. Zisla asked if a reasonable use of the property means the ability to add a working front entryway. O’Brien answered affirmatively. Zisla stated the Tussings’ request constitutes a reasonable use of their property. Livingston stated that the Tussings’ addition would be an improvement to the overall neighborhood. Baker stated that argument could be applied to any request for an addition to a home. Zisla stated a functioning entryway can be considered an important element for a viable home. The terms of the ordinance should be modified to allow functioning entryways. Baker stated Condition #7 of the resolution should be changed. After a brief discussion, the Commission changed Condition #7 to read: “An entry way onto a home is a reasonable use of property, and if the City were to deny the request, that reasonable use would be denied, therefore, a hardship would be brought upon the applicant should the variance be denied.” Baker called for a vote on the motion. 4 Ayes - 2 Nays. Motion Carried. Special Use Permit Keith McDonald/Brighton East LLC I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\09-21-99.WPD 4