03-22-00 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2000 Morelan noted the unique shape of the property as well as its topography. It was pointed out that the width of the property at the front is 93 feet. However, the lot tapers off and the width of the lot is about 80 feet at the rear building line. Scalze asked the Planner to recap the justification for granting a variance. The City Planner noted that the basic criteria is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use because of particular conditions. Width and shape of a lot are potential criteria, but the Planner pointed out that in this instance the lot is at least as wide as asingle-family lot and could be developed in compliance with the setback requirements in the Code. The building has been designed in a way that does not allow for setbacks to be met. Therefore, the criteria for granting a variance is not met. LaValle asked if the architect was of the impression that there were 10- foot setbacks in the RB District. Rossez reported that the building was designed prior to a lot being purchased. Once the lot was purchased, it was discovered that the building would not meet setbacks. Rossez reported that it is the bedroom area of the building that is out of compliance with setback requirements. It is this area of the building that has been cut back the most. Scalze asked if there was a Plan B in the event the Council does not grant the variance. Rossez replied that there was not. Schmidt reported that she discussed the matter with the architect who indicated it would be difficult to get all the necessary space into the building should the structure have to be redesigned to meet setback requirements. Scalze asked if there was enough green space on the lot. The Planner reported that there is not a specific green space requirement for the RB District. Morelan asked if a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development could be granted for this site. The Planner pointed out that under the PUD internal setbacks can be varied from, but perimeter setback requirements must be met. Scalze pointed out that there is sufficient room on the lot if the building is redesigned. Rossez suggested that the building could be moved forward on the lot. The Planner indicated that he had looked at this option, but felt that it would result in a less than reasonable front yard area as well as decrease available parking area in the driveway.