03-23-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 23, 1988 Neamy Scalze stated, however•, that she was not opposed to amending the City Property Code to address homes that were built prior to the change in the Code Division that incr~eased the size of sideyar~d setbacks. However•, Scalze did not (Cont.) feel that a var~iance could be gr~anted as this would give the Pleamy pr•oper•ty an advantage over• another• pr•oper~ty wher~e the pr~oper~ty owner• might not r~equest a var•iance. Fahey agr~eed. Fahey stated that the City cannot put itself in the position of gr•anting a lot split that will r•equir•e a var~iance. Var•iances ar~e only war•r•anted when a har~dship or~ unusual cir~cumstance is pr•esent. Fahey suggested that the City look at the change to the Code that was made in 1980 that incr~eased the size of sideyar•d setbacks. Fahey felt that if a home wer•e existing pr~ior• to 1980, it should be allowed to expand to within 5 feet of the side lot line. The City Planner~ commented that the City has addr~essed the situation wher•e a home existing pr•ior~ to 1980 can expand to within 5 feet of the side lot line and has allowed this. However•, in the case of the Neamy pr•oper~ty division, a new lot line is being cr•eated that would be less than 10 feet fr•om the Pleamy gar•age. This new lot was not a lot of r~ecor•d pr~i or• to 1980. Schultz suggested that he could r•equest a var•iance for~ a 75 foot wide corner lot. Fahey noted that a var•i ance r~equi r~es four~ affi r~mati ve votes of the Counci 1, and Mr•. Schultz does not have that. Blesener• suggested that when the Neamy home was fir~st built it was set with the intentions of splitting lots fr•om either• end, but tha pr•oper•ty was kept combined for tax purposes. B1esener felt that by not allowing a 5 foot setback on the sidelot line, Meamy was being depr~ived fr•om the reasonable use of her• pr•oper~ty. The Codes were changed in 1980 which incr~eased the sideyar•d setback, and Dlesener• felt the situation did r•esul t i n a har•dshi p. Schultz r•epor~ted that he wou1d be placing the new home so that ther•e is mor•e than a 20 foot building separ•ation. Fahey agr~eed that peopl e evi th 1 ar•ge par•cel s may have pl aced thei r~ homes in anticipation of dividing the pr•oper•ty at a futur•e date. In the meantime Codes wer~e changed which eliminatecl the possibility of ineeting setback r•equir•ements. Fahey noted that this was the situation in a pr•oposal for• spl i tti ng the {3ecker• pr•oper~ty as wel 1. Scalze felt the Council was in agr•eement that the 5 foot sideyar•d setback along the Neamy gar~age should be allowed, however~, the Council must deter~mine the best way to do this without a var•iance. Schultz agr~eed that when the Neamy home was built it was with the intention of splitting the pr•oper~ty in the futur•e. Page -10-