8-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2) There are unique circumstances related to this site. 3) The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4) The variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole. Teague feels that #1and #2 variance criteria have not been met but #3 and #4 have been met. Despite the fact that the request seems to be an amicable solution with the applicant and the neighbors, using the strictest interpretation of the Code, staff does not feel that the hardship criteria is satisfied, and is concerned that if the City approves the subject variance, it may set a precedent to allow similar requests in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District, therefore, staff must recommend denial of the proposed variance request. Baker asked questions regarding the addition to the back of the house, the size of the addition and any additional costs that may be incurred. Teague said that the addition to the back of the house had been discussed and wasn’t thought to be cost effective because of the roof line and the pitch of the roof. Baker asked if the additional cost was primarily due to the driveway construction. Mike Prebonich, applicant stated the additional cost was due to the removal of the siding, upgrading of the walls to a firewall, removing of a door, installing a fire door, moving of a window, footings attaching to the house, trusses, belly rafters, tying in, etc. th Richard Johnson, 1707 - 19 Avenue NW, noted his favoritism of this plan. He said the other plan would block the view from his house, disrupt the landscaping in the area, and neighbors are concerned that the property values could go down in the neighborhood. th Alice Finley, 1629 - 18 Avenue NW, urged the Planning Commission to accept the request. She commented on the size of the detached garage plan compared to an addition that would fit better into the characteristics of the neighborhood. th Jerry Fuhr, 1899 - 17 Street NW, had a question on controlling the additions of driveways for parking more th vehicles, trailers or boats. Teague stated that Mr. Prebonich could apply for a driveway access permit off of 17 Street and it would be permitted. The city code regarding parking cars, boats or trailers on grass was brought up and concerns of expanding the existing driveway were discussed. th Jolene Ormand, 1737 - 17 Avenue NW, had concerns that the addition of the garage would limit vision when at the intersection. th Bill Spitzmueller, 1773 - 17 Avenue NW, voiced his concern about the aesthetics of the Prebonich’s property because of all the vehicles he has parked in and around their home. th Carol Johnson, 1707 - 19 Avenue NW, was stunned with the cities zoning laws that would allow for such a huge accessory structure to be built in back yards of the neighborhood. She urged the Planning Commission to approve this request. No other public comment was received. CLOSE THE HEARING. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Zisla, to 5 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, to RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SIDE STREET YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.CHANGE #5 OF THE DENIAL RESOLUTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2000\8-15-2000.WPD