Laserfiche WebLink
• PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 <br /> September 16, 1998 <br /> 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda <br /> There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. <br /> 4. <br /> Planning Case No. 533-98 <br /> Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue <br /> Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a variance Request for a <br /> Sidewalk. <br /> Applicant: Timothy White <br /> The applicant, Timothy White, was present. <br /> Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: <br /> The applicant was back before the Planning Commission a second time after his original request <br /> • had been tabled. At the September 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, significant discussion <br /> was held regarding the merits of this case as well as the interpretation of the language in the Code <br /> relating to setbacks. Because of many factors (possible hardships), such as the slope of the land <br /> north of the garage, safety considerations and lack of access elsewhere on the lot, the Planning <br /> Commission acted to table the request to enable staff to draft both approval and denial versions of <br /> the resolution. <br /> Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution <br /> 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to <br /> allow for a reduced side-yard setback for a deck-like sidewalk. <br /> Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. <br /> Miller suggested the following amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the <br /> descriptive notes that Ericson had included in Section(a)under the staff report Analysis. She also <br /> suggested adding verbiage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was <br /> not possible due to exposure of the garage footings. <br /> Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that <br /> were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and <br /> expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done <br /> without first applying for the proper work permits. <br />