1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Motion carried to approve minutes of July 175 1967, Councilman Henderson voting no. Appeal of G. W. Brown from denial by the Planning Commission of his application for a variance to Section 6.9(c), Ordinance 1130, to permit the expansion of a main structure to within five feet of the rear property line, Lot 18, Block 35, Belle Haven Subdivision No. 2, 9-11 Broadway, in an R-2 District presented for consid- eration. Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 11, 1967, and denied the variance. Report of Planning Commission was read giving history of development of this property and stating a carport at rear of property has been converted into a garage and that applicant is now requesting that an addition be allowed to connect the rear dwelling structure to the rear garage. The proposed addition is 101x10' in size and proposed use of addition is for a laundry room and storage area which would make the duplex a single structure exceeding lot coverage restrictions of 40% to 42.8% and exceed the setback restrictions. Staff reported further condi- tions not present which would allow Staff recommending granting of this variance according to the zoning ordinance, such as unnecessary hardship, special circum- stances, different from similarly zoned property in the vicinity, etc. Mr. & Mrs. G. W. Brown, 11 Broadway, appeared to explain their need to build a connecting 10' x 10' building between their home and garage for laundry equipment and storage area, particularly needed because of repeated thefts of their children's bicycles. Illustrated chart of property described by Planning Director, giving details of variance requested. Suggestions were made by Council as to other possible ways this building could be built in another location other than between the living quarters and garage, which would make a variance unnecessary. In reply to ques- tioning by Council as to reasons Planning Commission had not granted variance, Planning Director explained Planning Commission was only following zoning ordinance restrictions with no presentation of facts which might be considered the granting of the variance. Councilman Petersen moved to reverse decision of the Planning Commission and grant the variance, as felt variance requested could only upgrade the area, seconded by Councilman Bury. Councilman Keckley stated his disapproving of granting variance, where justifica- tion not warranted as in this case to make an exception, and suggested that if zoning ordinance is wrong, it should be changed. Discussion held for clarification of a variance and procedures necessary to make exceptions. Councilman Granger requested that a Resolution or document be prepared stating that this addition would not be turned into a living area and that on resale, this is pointed out to any potential buyers, with a further stipulation document be recorded in the County Recorder's Office. Councilman Henderson moved to substitute motion by referring matter back to Plan- ning Commission for further consideration and for incorporating suggestions made by Council. Joe) .AA U 'a7