Laserfiche WebLink
;~~IIFIUT£S <br />City Co~mci1 <br />I:!OV. '6, 198 i <br />I!eamy <br />Property <br />D9vision <br />l~gend.a <br />Ite~ai No. 1'I. <br />~Irs. Scalze pointnd out that the f'lannino Commission too!< no action <br />on the i!eae:~ pro~erty di vi si on. <br />!~1r, 7om ~loore, r~~.~resenting P9rs. Pleamy, reportec! that h2 has researched <br />the records ancz cannot find a case similar to the I+!ea!ny property <br />cHvision ~-ahere the City r!rantecl a variance. Tnerefore, i4oore is <br />nroposing that raf.her then proce~d with'1:i~2 variance request, if the <br />property <fivision is approved, they svill re~riove 4.5 feet froni f.Pie <br />existiny garage in ordar to meet. setback requiren~ents. <br />Gloore ask~d i f there ~•aas a restri eti on for hos~r cl ose a dri veti~ay coul d <br />be ~to a !~roperty line. <br />Tlie °lanner replied t;hat driv~ways cari be to the edg2 of a pron~rty <br />line. <br />€~9oore renorted that at a later date t4rs. Pdearqy ma.y construct another <br />garage on th~ back of t~er properf;y. <br />~1r. ~ahey fel~ that this iwould rut up the ~laarny proper~,y. <br />!;l~sener suggs~stetl that a variance be ~ranl:ed for tne side yar<.! <br />setbac!:, rather t.han requirin~ ~leainy to rnmove a portion of the <br />existinq garage. 3lesener felt that re~novinr, part of t;hc~ c!arage <br />woulci cons'titute a hardship. <br />Fahey pointed out that G~hen the N~amy home ~~~as built, the City Code <br />only reruir2d a,-foot setbac!< for a narane. <br />Scalze felt tha~t a arecedent wou~icl oe set if a variance raas grant;ed <br />in this case. <br />Co1lova felt that a harclship exists becaG.ise the Coc(e was chann,ed <br />after the ~J~~ainy tiome t~as construc~ed. <br />The Cit~/ Attorn~~/ nninted out t'nat the Cntle says tt~e Ci ty cannot <br />create a lot ttiat is substandard. <br />The Planner stated that t~ie lot ~rio~.alcl he substand.ard in L+ridt'n, and <br />creation of the lot 4aould require a variance. <br />Council revie~,~e<S the ordinance. The Attorney rointed out that the <br />ortli nance al l o4~rs the Ci tY to exer,pi; soine requi reruents dvhen creati n~ <br />a lot. However, an inade~uate setback t-rould requir^ a variance. <br />Fahey acareeci that Cit,y policy has been to not create lots that <br />~;rould require a variance. <br />ThF P1anrier stated tha~; he r~vic~~r~ed the variance requests For the <br />past 4 years and found one case similar to the ileamy request. <br />In that casn a property oG~rn~r !•ras requestinn a 5 foot lot s,iidt:h <br />variarice, or a 5 f~o1: setbac!< variance. 7he Coiancil denieci the <br />ren,i.iest. <br />Page -15- <br />