1979-03-28 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Msrch 28, 1979 Page 3 ~""~pmmiesion Meinbar ~uan etatad thet he did not have e;1 opinion. He then ~ dded 'chec ha woula ba Ln fnvut: of allcwing the sp11C a7d rsquiring L•he appl3cant ro take down the chicken coupe and taka the door off the garage, Commieeion Member Foea etated that meny people have been turned down in the paet and recommended that they continue with even lot splite. He added that the garaga could be moved and coneidered a non-conforming use and a new door put on, Co~iseion Mamber Burmeister atated she could not see any hardahip for ~ granting a varianc~e for an acceesory building. She stated khaC Mr, Pa~ak ehould be required to take the garage down or cut it down to meet code. She elso atated that ehe would agree to moving the lot line cloaer to the ~ garage to bring it closer to an even lot eplit, ~ f Commiaeiun Member Glazer etated that he did not see that many probleme j with the deve'!~pment. I Commieaion Member Fedor etated that he cculd not see how the lot line could ~ bo moti~ed to within 3' nf the garap.,e i.f a 5' eaeemenr. was required, aa the ± garage would be 2' into the easement, ~ Commfeaion Diember Goebel atated that it was difficult to aelc a pereon to ~ move a building but that a 3' or 5' offset in the middle of the people ~,rqould cause probleme later. He added that it would be wiser to divide ~e lot in the mi3dle, especially aince it will be a long term, permanent ~ `^^fleciei~n. He also recommended that a amaller door be put on the garage. ~ Commiesion Member Freemore atated that he did nat see any major problems with an uneven lot split or with the exieting bullding. He also atated ~ that many lots had been unevenly eplit in the area. { Official Rose pointed out that if. the lot wae aplit i.n half and the garage j cut down to meet code, it would not infringe on the easement anc: would be up to code in all wayc. ~ Commiseion Member Goebel atated that Mr„ Pa~ak ehould make the deciaion of whaC he wante to do and not expect the City to do it for him, Mr. C, Pa~ak repli.ed that he w~uld be agreeable to removing the door and the coup but that he did not want to aplit the lot in the middle and he did ' not want to bear the cost of movln~ L-he gnrsge. ; 4 Cocm~iseion idember BurmeSster stated ehe felt the Planni.ig Ccmmission should , not take any action until Mr. Pa~ak bringa in a eurveyore oertificate eo they knaw exactly what they are lvoking at ar.d where ttie boundries are, She added that aurveyore certificates have been required of all applicanta in the paet and they have all been able to meet the coet. Co~iseion Member Goebel etated that it was critioal at thia time tn know the lot dimeneione and where the eplit would be and that they ehould not ~' Qice any action unt].l they know where the miaazp of the lot ie. 'MS (Burmeiater-Foae) that Robert Pa,jak, 8420 Red Oak Drive be required to divide hie lct equally and that in order to adhere to the 5' eaeememt, whatever part of thE eziating old garege that is infringi.ng on the 5' easemenC be removed.