CC PACKET 09251984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J -3- • 1 yard as the narrow side-.of a corner lot for setback purposes. for this proposal and, . 2 perhaps, make a permanent recommendation to that effect which could be applied 3 ' when the Johnson and Hertog properties in that same area are considered for 4 residential development. 5 6 Commissioner Franzese wondered if that interpretation were made, whether the 7 hearing had to be held at all . The response was that since it had been published 8 and neighbors had been notified, the hearing should proceed. The recollection was 9. also that the Council had indicated a preference for considering such action on 10 a case-by-case basis. The Manager .confirmed for Commissioner Jones that no 11 variance would be necessary if the Peele home were built to face Belden. Drive, 12 which would create a buildable and usable lot as Mr. Childs had indicated on:- the 13 sketches he had included in the. agenda packet. 14 15 He had no plans with him, but Dr. Peele indicated he perceived it would not be 16 feasible for the home he and his wife plan to build on the lot and live in, to 17 have the front door facing 32nd Avenue. He said it had been somewhat of an 18 economic sacrifice for them to tear down the building which they had rented out for 19 a great number of years which had been damaged, but not demolished, in the storm, a 20 especially since they received very little compensation from the insurance for 21 tearing it down. The applicant indicated he perceived the removal of the "eyesore" 22 which had caused so many problems for the neighbors and the police, should be 23 considered a service to the community. 24 ={ 25 Dr. Peele indicated he perceived no problem for his neighbor to the north of him • 26 since only their garages would be adjacent-to each other. He said the structure 27 he proposes to build would be in alignment with the Beberg 's house, and although 28 it might not be as' far back as the two homes being constructed further north on 29 that street, his home would be set back much- further than the Brown home at the 30 end of the street. Mr. Childs guessed the two new homes might be set back further 1 31 than the City Ordinance requires and indicated he views this request to be very 32 similar to those approved for the house on 34th and Edward and for the Flaherty 33 home on 32nd and Rankin Road. } 34 35 Dr. Peele indicated he perceived the home's appearance would be more aesthetically 36 pleasing if it faced Belden Drive, which should cause no problems for the property 37 owners to the rear since only their back yards would be facing each other. He { 36 saw the home he was proposing as enhancing that corner, in contrast to, "the dog 39 I tore down". 40 41 Frank Budnicki , 3124 Wilson Street N.E. , said he lived two lots down and across the 42 street from the Peele property and indicated he was opposed to letting Dr. Peele 43 build a house which he compared to a "long shed" which would be "twice the size of 44 my house and on a smaller lot". Mr. Budnicki indicated he couldn 't understand 45 why the City kept changing the rules about setbacks and said he perceived lots 46 in the City were getting smaller and smaller; lot lines shorter and shorter; and 47 homes being built much closer together, than when he had built. The opponent 48 indicated his 'own lot was 11 ,000 square feet with "a littl.e variation" and had a 49 much smaller house built on it. He was concerned that the -Peele home would not 50 be comparable to the $100,000 homes he sees being built just north of the Peele 51 _ properties on lots which were wiped out by the April 26th tornado. • 52 . 53 Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Budnicki if it would change the character of the house 54 for him if Dr.. .Peele put his front door facing 32nd Street and told him all the 55 applicant is asking of the City is permission to turn his house around to face out ��r