PL PACKET 10191993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. At the meeting,the adjoining property owner presented some letters which supposedly objected to the permit request. The subject property owner was not given copies of these letters or allowed to know their contents. The objections voiced verbally during the meeting by'the adjoining landowner had to do solely with not wanting the subject property owner to move his garage forward.'[here seemed to be no objections which addressed the supposed concerns of the City Council as outlined in the permit request form. The Planning Committee never once explained to the adjoining land owner that this was not a public hearing to discuss whether the garage should be moved,it was only for the purpose of discussing whether or not to recommend a side-yard setback permit. As a result,the entire meeting focused on everything about the subject property except the impact of a garage sideyard variance. � 5. The Planning Committee failed to offer any compromise with respect to the permit request,even when a certain degree of hardship was demonstrated on the part-of the subject property owner. Specifically,the fact that the house on the subject property is not completely square with the property line means that the garage,when moved,would have to be at a 4 and 3/4 inch variance to the property line in order to be square with the house. This was ignored by the Planning Committee. The subject property owner would like the City Council to at least consider allowing the garage to be placed somewhere between 3 and 5 feet from the adjoining property line,or at least allowing the back of the garage a 5 inch variance(where the front would be 5 feet from the line and the back would be 4 feet 7 inches from the line-allowing the garage to be set square with the house • without forcing the subject property owner to place the front of the garage further from the line than required by ordinance simply to set it square with the house). C,6,'to summarize,the Planning Committee simply did not do its job. Its job was to hold a public ring on the impact of a side yard setback permit request. Instead,testimony was entertained for an hour on the following items of general interest: the need to have the garage doors repainted, the existence of weeds growing along the back of the garage, whether it was feasible to have the garage moved, whether the garage would withstand being moved because it was 'too old' to be moved, whether the subject property owner should elect to have asphalt installed rather than concrete, whether the subject property owner uses the garage to store things or as a workshop, how often the owner actually parks his vehicle in the garage, who used to be the owner of the subject property, how damage from the Apache tornado of 1984 was repaired, who the owner had shared his house with in the past, why the owner's lot was 90 feet wide instead of 85 like everyone else's, how wide the driveway was actually going to be- 16 or 18 feet, whether the garage was stucco or wood,among other things.