Laserfiche WebLink
/ <br /> 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. 461b <br /> Y <br /> =:fir <br /> i SF. <br /> 4fF:. J'Y.JfI%'3y <br /> 4. : <br /> Y <br /> , f. <br /> Planning Case No. 533-98 `:_ <br /> Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue iifY i t'.; 'y ,<<:Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution . :.proving variance R=$ <br /> Sidewalk. >t< n. . <br /> Applicant: Timothy White <br /> lir Ill** <br /> The applicant, Timothy White, was present. .,,, <br /> = <br /> Associate Ericson gave his report as follows>t-<. _ ,,i.; :;A;. ::"444"., <br /> The applicant was back before the Plant g Com :mission a woWime after his original request <br /> had been tabled. At the September&l98 Plating Conision meeting, significant discussion • <br /> was held regarding the merits of : ": :=ase as :.�Il as the i., rpretation of the language in the Code <br /> relating to setbacks. Because ofny facto,: •ossibl, °' dships), such as the slope of the land <br /> north of the garage, safety considerations �. _ € ` cess elsewhere on the lot, the Planning <br /> Commissioned to tabl.,.- ;r_: nest to e "`"' to draft both approval and denial versions of <br /> the resoluti >RA . <br /> Staff was recommendingthat thet Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution <br /> 556-98, a Resol> l ?t" Oving a' ' nce for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to <br /> allow for a `educed side-yar setback dor a deck-like sidewalk. <br /> Air 1W51,4Ak& <br /> -e :INONMen; <br /> Chai,, erson Peterson returnedthe floor to the Commission for questions of staff. <br /> If <br /> MAW suggested the following amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the <br /> emtn <br /> descriptive notes.thatricson had included in Section (a) under the staff report Analysis. She also <br /> sedddingri <br /> s:: verbiage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was <br /> Mm*AMnopossi' .tlu+ to exposure of the garage footings. <br /> 4c a::Y:n.1y i:'t::.` 1:°' <br /> .�'Fk�T'o:.`df <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. 1111 <br />