10/09/1985 P&Z Agenda & Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 1 1 PLANNING & ZONING October 9, 1985 Page Three felt that the engineer has note dealt with the primary concern that he has with regard to underground road work -- a minimum depth requirement. MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to have the Building Official contact the City Engineer and have him address the minimum depth requirements for underground road work. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion which carried unanimously. EL REHBEIN & SON - VARIANCE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Mr. Jeff Joyer returned from the 9/11/85 meeting with the informa- tion requested by the Board. He had appeared on 9/11/85 requesting a variance to setback requirements in order to build a particular home at the corner of Birch Street and Totem Trail. During last month's discussion there was question as to whether or not this lot is actually 100' X 130' as the applicant had it listed. The lot size question developed after studying two dif- ferent maps. Mr. Joyer has researched the records and found that the lot is indeed 100' X 130'. Another question raised at the last meeting was whether or not the soil is suitable on which to build a home. Mention was made that the home on the adjacent lot did experience settling problems due to poor soil. Mr. Joyer did take soil borings and brought samples to the meeting. The first sample was from 15' depth just behind the proposed home, and another sample from 15'depthjust behind a dif- ferent style of home. The first sample was sandy loam, acceptable for building; the second sample was peat consistency, unacceptable. Mrs. Klaus stated that the proposed home is quite long and narrow, which causes the need for a variance to setbacks; and another type of home Mr. Joyer used for his demonstration is quite deep which causes the soil problem. She felt that still another type of home could be built which would not create a need for a variance, nor would it create a problem due to soil consistency. She felt that since an entirely different style of home could be built, that the hardship that Mr. Joyer has shown is caused because of determination on the part of the applicant to build the proposed house. Mr. Joyer stated that a different style home, as suggested by Mrs. Klaus, would not be marketable in his opinion, which causes an economic hardship. An economic hardship is not an acceptable reason for the City to grant a variance. Mr. Joyer referred to a section of the City ordinance which allows a setback of an average of the setbacks of the homes on the adjoin- ing lots. He considered the adjoining lots as the lot to the west on the other side of Totem Trail, which has a setback of 33'; and the next house to the east (which is not on the adjoining lot), which has a setback of 9'. Using this formula, Mr. Joyer felt that the setbacks he proposed would be acceptable. Mr. Joyer felt that using this formula, he should be able to simply apply for a building per- mit and not pursue a variance at all. Mr. Kluegel said that he 141