CC MIN 1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

446 Planning Director noted report had been submitted to Council , and that in essence , the finding of the Commission had been that they were unable to find grounds for granting a variance , as required by the Zoning Ordinance . They concluded that the property did not have unusual circumstances that wouldn ' t also apply to all other lots in the neighborhood . He indicated Planning Commission did struggle with the standard itself as to whether it was defensible , but did not pursue it . He had also raised the question that if the Commission found 10 feet to be excessive as a requirement between buildings , then rather than grant the variance , the ordi- nance should be changed . Planning Director responded to a number of questions by Council , advising these types of matters are referred by Planning Commission to Fire Department in all cases , also that if structures are at least 5 feet apart , then the Building Code requirement is met as far as fire safety , without fire walls . He said the matter of whether the 10 foot requirement was desirable had been considered by the Commission within the past year and a-half , but chose to retain that minimum . He also pointed out that if the garage was attached to the house there would not be a requirement of space at all , although there would have to be a one -hour fire wall . Councilman Weymouth noted there had been sug- gestions made to the applicant for modifications which apparently were not accept - able to them . Planning Director indicated this was the case , and that several alternatives were offered by which a variance application would be unnecessary , such as reduction in size of the addition , or change in shape of the addition , or most costly , relocation or removal of existing garage and adding a carport toward the front . Referring to the report , Councilman Henderson noted in appli - cant ' s Statement of Justification, to question whether this was a request others in the vicinity might make , he had responded negatively , but it appeared to her the possibility might exist that others might ask for similar variance . Planning Director felt the applicant had responded honestly , but expressed the belief that wherever detached garages exist , frequently the garages are not maintained to the standards of the homes . Mr . George Petrakis , 2110 Jefferson Avenue , provided some personal background and described the layout of the interior of his home . Bedrooms and bath were toward the front of the property , making it im- practical to place the addition there . Larger space was needed for a dining area , and when application was made for permit , he was not informed about the 10-foot requirement . He stated the addition would only be sufficient to satisfy minimal family needs . Leonard Herzstein , 2718 Ohio Avenue , inquired whether building a walkway between the structures would con- stitute a legal attachment . Planning Director advised that kind of connection would not be considered an attachment , but added that if addition were built to adjoin the two buildings , with a one-hour fire wall , this would be a legal attachment . There being no communications or further discussion , Councilman Petersen moved to close the public hearing , seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried . 3 - 13 -72