Laserfiche WebLink
Decemher 1J, 1978 <br />C~wmieaion Mewbar <br />Commisaion Membar <br />Commiaeion Member <br />Commiaeion Member <br />Commideion Member <br />Chairperson tiaake <br />Page 5 <br />Quan - nay <br />Blanchard - nay <br />Burmeieter - aye <br />Glazer - aye <br />Fedor - aye <br />- nay 3 ayee, <br />' 3 nayd <br />M3P (Olazer-BUrmeietar) to recommend to Che City Council the dettial <br />o£ the req+.xest on tho grounds that Che propoeed building aiza ie tou <br />large for the axiating lot size, The Plsnning Commiaeion realizes that <br />the zoning code does not apecificaily addreae itaelf to a triplex and <br />classifications ae a townhouae or multiple dwelling unit are not ade- <br />quate. Tharefora, the motion is b~caed on asthetic grounde, and is a <br />compromiee between wltat the Plannir+g Cnuaniasion feels and the require- <br />ments of a tcrc~nhouse and multi.ple 3we111ng. <br />A rollcall vote was caken: <br />Cummieaion Membex Fedar - aye <br />Gnmmiaeion Member Gla~ex - aye <br />Chpi.rpereon Haake - nay <br />Commissicn rlemUer Burmeieter - a+je <br />Commission Member Blanchar3 - na~ <br />Coamiiseion M~mber Quan - aye 4 ayee, <br />~; 2 naye <br />(~Commisaion Member Blanchard stated ahe dtd not feel they ehould denq Che <br />req'uest because there ia not a definition for a triplex in Che code. She <br />pointed out that it was brought to the Planning Commi,sei.on ae a iaultiple <br />unik. Official Roee repliad that he felt l-he ettorney would adviee going <br />by what the City felt ie the 'intent of tha code. <br />Chairparson Haake atated that ehe felt the Planning Commieeion shnuld <br />make some decision becauoe the appllcant has met the requirementa of the <br />lot eize. <br />Mr. Banaon stated he would be willing to waiC until January be£ore going <br />before the Council. <br />VARIAt~CE RRsUEST Or RODNEY DADIId -£f230 PLEASANT V2CW DRXVE <br />UfEicial Rcae reported that the applicunt has requested to conatruct n <br />duplex dc,~ell.ing requiring a rear yard setback varianne of 5', due to <br />the irregular shape of the lot. <br />OfEicial Rose reviewed the planning coneideretione and stated that Uecause <br />of the irregular shape of tha lot, the weat corner of the dwellin~ ie <br />below code, while the,other three cornexa ar~ at or ~r.ear.er L-han the re- <br />quirEd code. Official ltose stated that Staff's main ccncern would be <br />maintaining a reaeunable setback from Che city limiL•e o£ Spring Lakc Fark, <br />~~not knowing what may occur there. Further, that 25' would seem to be <br />reaeonable, and with the definition questlon of a rear or slde yard <br />setback, staff would recommend approval of the variance, due t~ the <br />3 aornered loti. <br />