Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 9, 1992 <br />Sykes referred to the City Planner's report dated <br />January 6, 1992 which outlines the conditions that must <br />be present to warrant the granting of a variance. <br />Sykes pointed out that the reason for his variance <br />request is the peculiar shape of the lot. Sykes <br />estimated the width of the proposed lot at the front of <br />the existing garage at 70 feet, therefore, the variance <br />being requested is not a large one. Sykes felt that <br />approval of the variance would not create any unusual <br />precedent. <br />Sykes also pointed out that when sewer was put in <br />Savage Lane, he property was charged for two sewer <br />connections. Sykes stated that he wanted to emphasize <br />the pie- shaped character of the property as the reason <br />for the need for a variance. <br />The City Planner pointed out that City Code requires a <br />75 -foot lot width at the 30 -foot setback line. The <br />Planner reported that he measured the property and <br />determined that there would be 68 to 70 feet of width <br />at the existing garage setback line. <br />Drabik asked if the City should be more concerned with <br />the total square footage of the property, with Sykes <br />pointing out that both lots would exceed the City's <br />minimum square footage requirements. <br />The City Planner reported that the reason for the width <br />requirement is so there is adequate open space between <br />houses. The Planner stated that in this case all <br />setback requirements would be met. The Planner <br />reported that the problem in this case is that the lot <br />does not fan out as quickly as the typical cul -de -sac <br />lot. The Planner stated that the Commission must <br />consider whether in approving this variance there would <br />be other places in the City where lots would have <br />adequate square footage, but could not meet width <br />requirements. <br />Drabik stated that to her the issue would be whether <br />there was adequate square footage and whether setback <br />requirements could be met. In those cases, she would <br />not have a problem with a variance. <br />Garske asked if approval would result in something that <br />was out -of- character with the neighborhood. <br />DeLonais pointed out that there have been other <br />property divisions that the City has denied due to <br />inadequate widths, such as the Pelton and Cardinal <br />properties. <br />Page 3 <br />