Laserfiche WebLink
1 -2- <br /> 2 <br /> • 3 Proponents: -Robert Fickle told Commissioner Madden he intends to <br /> 4 replace the existing roof and the ridge of the 1-1/2 <br /> 5 story addition would be higher on the east end; <br /> 6 <br /> 7 -told Commissioner Hansen he and his wife, Susan, who <br /> 8 was with him at the hearing, perceived they needed the <br /> 9 additional living space cited in their application, and <br /> 10 the shape and position of the existing house would not <br /> 11 permit the addition to be constructed at the required <br /> 12 setback; <br /> 13 <br /> 14 -confirmed that the home to the east protruded even far- <br /> 15 ther into the required front yard setback. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 -Richard Ott., 2618 - 30th Avenue N.E. was present, but <br /> 18 did not speak. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 No one spoke against the variance and the hearing was closed at 7 : 47 <br /> 21 P.M. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Commission Recommendation <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wagner to recommend the City Council grant <br /> 26 the necessary front yard setback variance to allow Robert and Susan <br /> 27 Fickle to construct the addition to the east side of their existing home <br /> 28 at 2614 - 30th Avenue N.E. shown on the sketch included with their <br /> •29 application in the June 16, 1987 Planning Commission agenda packet. In <br /> 30 recommending the variance be granted, the Commission finds that: <br /> 31 <br /> 32 -the existing house is a legal non-conforming use and the proposed <br /> 33 addition would not additionally encroach into the required frontyard <br /> 34 setback; <br /> 35 <br /> 36 -it appears the addition would be a definite improvement to the appear- <br /> 37 ance of the property; <br /> 38 <br /> 39 -the variance would permit an addition which would fit a reasonable <br /> 40 floor plan; <br /> 41 <br /> 42 -the addition would be behind already established front yard sight <br /> 43 lines in that block; <br /> 44 <br /> 45 -all three conditions required to be satisfied affirmatively before a <br /> 46 variance can be granted have been met with this proposal and had been <br /> 47 satisfactorily addressed by the applicants on their application; <br /> 48 <br /> 49 -no one spoke against the variance during the hearing and staff <br /> 50 reported receiving no calls or letters in opposition to the addition <br /> 51 prior to the hearing. <br /> 52 <br /> 53 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> •54 <br />