Laserfiche WebLink
i ! <br />1Vlaea�tds View Plan�°sa�� Coanmissiorr <br />I3e�a�lar Me�t��g <br />Ape°i1219 1999 <br />Pa�� 11 <br />The Pianning Commission agreed ihat the improvement would be a benefit to the home and <br />wouid serve to make the property mare habitable ar�d to increase the value of the property, as <br />�well as possibty promptin� others nearby to invest in their own properties. BECause oithe narrow <br />lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, buitding expansion beco � difficult. <br />Sta�has examined the criieria upon which variance appli <br />in alI instances, a case can be made which supparts the g� <br />There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting <br />would be located l�ehind a planned garage additiori, and i <br />fih� narth by a� atiached garage. The dwelling unit to tt�i <br />would not be impacted by this addition as it is separate�;; <br />of the building. <br />�s are to ��� �u't1��1� and found that <br />�f a v�r��r��e in: t�?i�s circumstanc <br />this add���q��, th� ����� spac� ,� <br />be b� � �'�'ed f'rai� ��� ��o�er��r�� <br />1, ����.ched to Mr ��r���' ����'� <br />.v.:. <br />��mon addition on �h� �a���: side <br />Ericson stated thai given the supporting criteria, Iack a�ne�a�i� irn� <br />increased Iivahility af the property, staf�'recomrnend� t�at,the ]�l�.ri��1 <br />Resolution 574-99, a resolution approving a va��a�c� tr� �1tpw a bi�ili <br />foot setback from the north property line of �.�t�2'�i�:a����nond �.� enu�, <br />Ericson advised that the applicant was <br />-' � there were any unresolved issues. �-t�' <br />.,. , <br />comments receivad since the last r�z��t <br />Miiler <br />this can be r��i :�mpravem <br />grant a vt�r�arie� ��:d she <br />et�j oyed by o�h�� �� i�p� <br />differeni confi�u�'�t��� <br />requires t���'��e �pecta <br />Miller ��� d she under <br />cann�e the result af <br />�.. <br />to at��� bu <br />her�'a.re no c <br />d ihe resulting <br />�ission approve <br />ansion with a five- <br />ested by Don Norris. <br />n this morning to ask if <br />issues nar negative <br />ed ��Zat�e has be�z� Va�;t�n�� over ihis decision She stated she sees <br />�it fic� t�i� ,propert}� b�i� t�ez`�;'are seven criteria that must be followed to <br />s%bpt���'�d l?y two. �"Specifically, the criteria indicates that by the literal <br />iszor�� of thi� � itle, it would deprive the appiieant of righis cammonly <br />es ir� tlie ��tne t���trict. Miller noted that the applicant could b�aild a <br />�� still ma�r�t��n a��en-foot separation. She sfiated the criteria alsa <br />�cir�c�i�i,c�ns or�circumstances do not result frorn actions oithe applicant. <br />�ta�� �����aod intent but the variance says to grani fhe circumsiances <br />Y�oz�� nt the applicant. <br />i stated staff, in� iewing the applica#ion, felt the actions are not the result of ths property <br />since ihe pro ��4.�es were platted many years ago and the way ihe twinhomes were <br />�Y'�C� ptl ��i�J;; �fdid not lend to fiirther �xpansion. He stated he understands Commissioner <br />�.�, <br />��� <br />s_�s��������u� feeis the hardship goes back fitrther than the ownership of this applicant. <br />"�;>::;'�:�� ��::��:�:, <br />Commission�r �egland stated the Codes the City now foilows are based on new constructxon <br />t�cluiiques and requirements and the City is imposir�g those on existing properties that were buili <br />long ago, which is the funciion af redevelopment. �ie stated he believes ihis h�s created a <br />hardship for this particutar property so he sezpports approval. <br />� <br />