10-28-87 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October 28, 1987 Foyt Side Hessin r~eplied that they wer•e not claiming this, however•, noted that Yar•d the City's Building Inspector~ appr•oved the location of the stakes for~ Setback the home on Lot 4. Var~iance (Cont.) Fahey pointed out that the Building Inspector• was r~elying on the stakes which were set by the surveyor or engineer for the property owner• of Lot 4. Fahey pointed out that the fact that Mr•. Foyt's lot has been r•educed in width by 10 feet is not the fault of the applicant. Mr•. Foyt would like to constr•uct a house on his lot which he has been planning, and does not want to have to r•edesign the house. Fahey felt that ther•e was a har•dship pr•esent due to the ar•chitectual fees that Mr~. Foyt has spent. Hessin agr~eed that the situation was unique in that Mr~. Foyt bought this pr•oper~ty with the intentions of building his dr•eam house and assumed that he had a cer•tain width lot. LaValle asked if the var~iance could be r~educed or~ eliminated by moving the house back fur•ther~. Hessin pointed out that the pr•oper•ty slopes in the back and pointed out the additional cost of a longer~ dr•iveway plus the fact that the house wi 11 have a poor~er• appear•ance i n r•el ati on to the enti r•e development. Fahey agr•eed that ther•e ar•e special cir•cumstances in the case that ar•e not the fault of the applicant. Blesener• stated that he had no pr~oblem with the var•iance being r•equested on the nor•th pr•oper~ty 1 i ne, but had a pr•obl em wi th a 6 foot separ•ation between buildings on the south. Collova pointed out that ther•e ar•e a lot of communities that have 5 foot setbacks on one of the side lot lines. Blesener• r~esponded that usually when there is a 5 foot setback on one lot line, the adjacent pr~oper•ty is r~equired to have a 10 foot setback for• a total of 15 feet in separ~ation. Fahey pointed out that the alter•native would be to have the owner• of Lot 4 r•emove the separ~ation, however~, felt the pr~oposal befor~e the Council was a mor~e sensible way to handle the pr~oblem. Scalze pointed out that the City would not be for~cing Mr~. Foyt to have his neighbor take down his gar•age by not appr•oving the var•iance. The Planner• pointed out that the neighbor• to the nor~th may be r~elying on a 20-foot separ~ation between buildings. Fahey noted that the City could appr•ove the var•iance contingent upon Page -14-