My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 09202005
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2005
>
PL PACKET 09202005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 4:25:38 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:25:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 09202005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> August 23, 2005 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 1 have considered putting the egress window on the front of the house; however a gas main enters <br /> 2 the house there. The east end has the driveway. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Mark Steadman, applicant, stated they believe they have arrested the concerns of the Planning <br /> 5 Commission and are trying to address concerns of the neighbor. He said he had a safety <br /> 6 perspective and he is trying to address storm water problems and the aesthetics perspective. The <br /> 7 City and Planning Staff seem to be in favor. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Mayor Faust asked if he lived at this house. He answered he does not, but his daughter lives <br /> 10 there with a roommate. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, seconded by Councilmember Gray, to adopt Resolution 05- <br /> 13 064, re: Approve variance to side yard setback to install an egress window at 2909 30`s Avenue. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Councilmember Stille stated he is in favor of an egress window, but opposed to the way in which <br /> 16 we are doing this. Our hardship is that the house was built before the Zoning Code. He said he <br /> 17 does not like to rely on those types of findings. When the applicant purchased the house, he <br /> 18 knew the Code existed. The Code did not create the problem. If this variance is allowed, it sets <br /> 19 a precedence. He stated that having some sort of approval of a Conditional Use Permit would <br /> 20 make sense. Each house is different. We cannot require a fence to approve this variance. The <br /> 21 applicant made a good presentation and seems to be sincere. He said he has an issue with regard <br /> 22 to the hardship issue, given the circumstances, and the precedence being set. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Councilmember Horst stated in reviewing this case, it seems the Planning Commission and the <br /> 25 Fire Chiefs primary concern was to have some type of egress in the house. It is now required in <br /> 26 the basements of houses by state code. He said the City should get the Ordinance changed to <br /> 27 allow these windows. The fact that setbacks have to be decided on is a problem with small lots. <br /> 28 Safety should be the concern. In newer homes this is a requirement, so we need to approve this <br /> 29 variance and get busy on the text amendment change. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Mayor Faust said he is against the variance for two reasons. One reason is what Councilmember <br /> 32 Stille mentioned regarding the fact that the owner knew the Code when he bought the house. <br /> 33 This may be for economic gain, and it causes economic opportunity when egress windows are <br /> 34 allowed. Another issue is that he said he is apprehensive about approving just one variance. If it <br /> 35 were done through Conditional Use applications, it would allow the opportunity to see how it <br /> 36 would apply to all instances. This is not a safety issue since no one is living in the basement,but <br /> 37 it could be in the future. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Councilmember Thuesen agreed with Councilmember Horst that the safety issues do need to be <br /> 40 considered. He stated that hearing the dialogue from Councilmember Stille and Mayor Faust,he <br /> 41 gets the sense that there would be a better way to go about this. If we deny this, it is not that the <br /> 42 applicant cannot come back and approach this in a different means. At this point,he said he is <br /> 43 inclined to agree with the Mayor and Councilmember Stille that we need to take a second look at <br /> 44 it. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Councilmember Horst noted the Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion. Commissioner <br /> 47 Jensen confirmed. He said the Commission felt there were a number of encroachments that were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.