05-28-86 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r~z~.iuTi.s City Council i~tay 2F3, 19~36 Recess Paul ~orn Proparty ~livision A~enda Itero Alo. 7 At this ~oint in the meetinp, 9:03 P,f1., Council too!< a short recess. The !neeting l~as reconvened at 9:11 P.r-i. Fah~y opened the public hearing on the Paul ~;ora pronosal to divide his property locatpd on Cot.mty Road F3-?_ anci Jacl<son Street into t~do lots. Fahey pointed out that the Planning C,ommission passetl this proposal on ~vithout a recommendation c!ue to the~ fact that the ordinance ren,uires tha~: the shortest sida of th~ lot is r.onsidered the front y1rc1, and is proposed, the existing Piome on the property would not have an ac(equate rear yard setbac!< and ~iould require a variance. The Planner has indicated that thers~ aaas no hardsnip that sdould vrari°a.nt a variance being nranted. °aul f~org, ,'_370 Jackson, presented a diagram of the proposed property division. [3org informed the Council that t'n2re ~das only 15 feet from tPiF existing garage to 'the properi:y 1ine and the ordinitice requires a 30 foot rear yard s~tback. E3org cfescribec! the location oF the property ~~nc! ihe faci, that tliere is no other siarrounding property other than the railroad rinht-of-~,aav. Fahey as'r,ed i9r. i3ore~ if i,here a>>as otiier criteria he a~ranted the City to consid^r as there t-~as no hardship involveci to v~arrant the variance. ~•9r. Qorg pointeci out that by adiusting the lot line so that the lot l~iitn the existing hor;ie nas no frontage ori Co~mty Road f~-2, the ordinance renuirem^nts can be met. fiow^ver, the confin~.matiori of the lot is not a good one. 3org felt tciat the proposal before the C,ounci 1~,~ias a c~ood comnron!i s^. itrs. Scalze pointed ~ut thaC the Council rec2ntly informeQ Thoi7ias Judd thai: they ~r~oul d not approve hi s 1 ot sp1 i t i f~t'nere ~;~as any variance involvecl. Scalze felt ~I~at the ~ity must be consistent. ~ ahey fel t that tne f;i t,y shoul d cori~ ly vai th the ordi nance anc! 'ne ~;ia.s notin favor of the variance ~~ecause of lac!< of hardshin. ~ati^y asked i f ttie Counc,i 1~roul d be +,ai thi n i ts ri c~hf:s to deny the proposal s•~hereby the 1 ot ~~ri th the exi sti ng home sioul d'nav~ no frontaqe on County Road [3-?_. The Ci ty Attornry r~pl i ec1 that thi s i~roul d he ~•ri thi n ttie Ci ty' s ri nhts as the resu1ting lot would ha~ie a strange configuration and the proposal ~aas a a~ay of evading t'ne ordinance. ilr. r3orn statecl that t~ie reason for the change i n t'ne 1 ot 1 i ne wo~il d be to compl,y ~,~ii th ti~c ordi nance, not eva<le i t. Scalze agreed. P"r. f3org stateci that ~vhen he made application for the property ciivision fi~ rlas not aware of tVie change i n front and bacl: yards i.~nder the orclinance. °or~ stated thaC he felt thare viould be no problem Pane -10-