CC MINUTES 11151977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• rebuilt the design will be modified so that it will only cover the base- ment addition. A letter from the owners of the adjacent lot, Jeffrey and W. Annette Shelstad, indicated they "had no objections to the building of the Cartwright' s addition to within one foot of our existing lot line" . Mr. Cowan arrived at 7: 37 P.M. The foundation and floor for the new addition was already in before the error in the survey was confirmed, the applicant told the Board and he reiterated =the points of justification in his November 7th addendum to the Petition for Variance saying his claim for hardship was predicated on the size of his family which now includes three teenagers and a necessity for another bedroom and bath as well as a more usable recreation area in the lower level of his existing three bedroom home. He did not feel this could be done if 322 square feet were-eliminated from the 236 square foot addition he was requesting. He said since there will only be three feet of the addition built above ground, the overall aesthetics of his property would not change from that which existed with the pre- vious structure and there will be no diminishing of green spaces with the addition. Neighbors from an adjoining street were present but they said they were only interested in the outcome because they have an almost identical • situation with their own lot. No one else spoke for or against the pro- posal. Chairman Hiebel closed the hearing at 7 :40 P.M. for Board .and staff in- put. Two Board members, Mr. Klick and Mr. Letourneau, were concerned that "a dangerous precedent of allowing one foot sideyards was being set" . Mr. Letourneau was afraid once the footings were in they would result in a future request to enclose the deck area. This could pose a problem for both the homeowner and the City since there would be no room left for a fence. He disagreed with Mr. Cartwright's contention that the 14 feet between the Shelstad existing house plus the one foot to his own pro- perty line fulfilled the 15 foot sideyard requirement of the ordinance saying at least five feet are required on each side of the lot line. He did not feel cutting off four feet from the size requested for the addition would create a great hardship for Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Klick wondered if there should not be a survey required for any property where there is a question but the Manager told him this would be costly for petitioners since such a procedure costs around $250 .00 at present. Mr. Klick later asked a report from the staff on the feasibility of re- quiring surveys whenever there is a question of the original platting or survey. Previous instances where construction had been permitted closer to the • lot line than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance were mentioned by Mr. Marks who made special reference to a swimming pool which had been al- lowed on Rankin Road. He felt there was more justification for allowing (2)