1977-09-14 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 14, 1977 Page 5 r/"~Chough that he had planned on being closer than 5' to the lot 11ne. MSP (Naake-eurmeister) to deny a variancs for Ronald Sclimidt at 8456 Groveland Road to have a paved surface that would be 1' from Che 7ot line an:; recomnend theC he remove 4' of the paved surface so that it will be in conformah+:e taith the City code of 5' fror~~ the iot line. 3 ayes 2 nays Mr. Schmidt stated that if the Plannin9 Commission members wouid dr{ve through the City, they would note other instances of violations which residents had not reported. He also pointed out that he had paid addiCiona7 money to have the extension built and now would be paying ayain to have it taken out. Chairperson Haake asked if h1r. Schmidt ~ould appeat the Planning Co~rmission's decision tc the City Council. ~fficial Rose replied thaC he could but that it would be at Ms own expense since a public hearing would have ta be held and a certificate of property owners within 350' of his property would have to be supptied to the City by Mr. Schrnidt, which wo~1d cost between $30 and $60. Officia7 Itose also reported that buiiding permits Are not being app7ied for for less than 5'. Ne also repar~ed that the asphait company Hihich 'laid the driveway had applied for the permit and that a City inspector had gone o~at and inspcct?d the driveway and reported the violation to tlfficial Rose, and brought Mr. Schmidt in to see him. He, at that ¢ime, advis~d Mr. Schmidt to e9ther take the extension out to meet the 6' ti•equirement or appear before the Planning Commission. VARIANCE REQUEST OF VIRGIL EHRREICN, 2193 OAKWOOp DRIVE Officia'• Zose expiained that Mr. Ehrreich has requested to buitd a garage-liouse addi- tion to his existing house which would place the new foundation 6' from hi, property line, while the code requires 10'. Pianntng considerations include that tiie hnuse which wautd be located ad,~8cent to the new additi4n 1s 12' from the comnon property line, and the total setback between the new addition and ad,iacent house is 17'. The addition wauld 6e composed of a ground level garage wlth,living quarters t~ be located above it. The garage addition would be 7Tf3 square feet, which meets code requirements. There is an existing garag~ 7ocated behind +Lha hruse, which is 320 square feet and wou7d be requ9red to be reduced to 218 square feet, which is the maximum allowable size for accessory bui7dings. The house front is presentiy located 5U' from the bou7evard, and the addition wou]d extand to 44' which 9s within code reqairements. The lot frontage is 75', which is 10' substandard. Chairperson Naake asked if the roof of the accessory buildin9 would hiock the view of the- 19ving quarters. Mrs. Ehrreich replied that it would not. Comnission Member foss asked what the size would be qf the new building. Mrs. Ehrreich replied that ii wouid be 26' x 2t3', wiCh the same sir.e living quarters aDove it. Commissian Member Foss also asked if a house or garage setback wouid be required and -•, what the maln purpose of the building would be. Official Rose repTied that iL is the ; Stai'f's responsitr111ty t~ anforce the code in the mnre stringent way and st»ce the ~-/ living quarters proviJe the higher standards, it would be c~nsiGer~d a h~using variance.