PL MINUTES 08191980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- which will more closely match the new homes. in..that neighborhood. • Ms. Tobias . also .said the existing home was built prior to the adoption of. a City Zoning ordinance. She sees it as a better investment to build the new addition and do -the necessary remodelling of the interior than to expend- the same funds to. remodel anon-conforming garage which uses. valuable backyard space. Ms. Tobias concluded by saying she had secured the: approval. of her .neighbors to .the north, east and west to her improvement plans. No one appeared to- speak in opposi- tion to. the proposal. Before closing the public hearing at 7 : 56 P.M. , the .Chairman cautioned Ms. Tobias to . confirm with the City building inspector that the plans for the spiral staircase included in the changes in the interior meet all the applicable codes and standards . Noting the City had allowed this property to be .subdivided in such a manner as to leave the existing- garage -within a foot of the lot line, Mr. Sopcinski suggested the Commission see this as an example of action taken in the past proving to. be a. prob.lem .for .the City at a later date. He then complimented the petitioner for her excellent presentation of the proposal and securing approval.. of her. .neighbors prior to the hearing. Mr. Jones said he was going to move- for a recommendation of approval for the variance request because he did not. see. thirty foot set- backs as always necessary for front yards leaving so. much land which is not usable while most family activities are carried out in the back yards where there* is more privacy. He saw the- proposal, as presented, as excellent in that it will provide a dwelling which will be more • compatible to the rest of the neighborhood. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr._ Peterson .to .recommend Council approval of a 5 feet 8 inch front yard setback variance as well as a side yard setback variance of 2 feet 6 inches which will allow Susan Tobias to construct the additions to thehome at 3121. 39th Avenue N.E. as proposed. in Exhibit I , Site Plan No. 1, on the con- dition that the existing .garage on the property is removed--upon completion. of construction, .finding that granting these variances; (.1) would result in an overall improvement of the lot and the existing non-conforming garage can be removed; (2)_ would aid. in saving the existing aethestics, of. the property by allowing the preservation of the existing (.stately) . oak tree, and (3) would relieve a hardship and correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property-,but not applicable. to .other property in the vicinity or zoning district, as it was .caused by the City ordinance which was adopted after the existing structure was built. The Commission also takes into consideration; (.a) the irregular setbacks of the adjacent properties , (b) adequate on site parking which will now be available, (c) support of seventy-five percent . of the adjacent property owners for the request, and (d) that better blending of this older home with the newer homes in theneighborhood can be expected from this improvement. Motion carried unanimously.