|
� j �
<br /> �7
<br /> In respnnse to quPS Planning �irectorr5chroeter advised that there
<br /> are several single-family dwellings in'the�area whtch occupy prop�rty
<br /> zoned�R-2 but which would not accommodate a duplex because of their
<br /> extremely narrow width, noting that the mim mum 60-foot width required
<br /> is some 13 feet more,then ,the,width of the.sub�ect property ,In,
<br /> ' further response to questions,,Mr Schroeter�advised�that�a=very
<br /> similar'plan,for the�property was�submitted last year and the proposed
<br /> plan d�ffers only in`that•the'd`riveway appears to have been placed on
<br /> the opposite side of,the lot, that the only,way.similar-lots could
<br /> ' ,.be�developed.for duplexes would`berfor�the owner to,obte�n a-var�ance
<br /> ,or to.combine ad�oining lots in"whzch`case=a.triplex might�-be per-
<br /> 'mitted; tha`t there are several similar lots in the area, that at�the
<br /> time,the recent were made,in_the;,Zoning�Ordinance�requir7ng
<br /> mim mum 60-foot�lot widths for duplez development, it was that
<br /> 'such'7ots' ez�sted�in the "C7ty;�"that construct7on of a single-family
<br /> dwel7ing is,a,pr,of,itable use,of the proper,ty „ that in-considering the
<br /> matter,_the Planning'Commiss�on was aw�are�that the lot width was sub-
<br /> standard'fo'r a single-family or duplex dwelling before the recent
<br /> Zoning Ordinance changes,by some three feet and is now some 13 feet
<br /> short' of tfie miimum'�width;"and`that Commission must assume that
<br /> .changes in,the_Zoning,Ordinance - were intentional. Mr. Schroeter noted
<br /> that"the`potential conse`quences of granting a var�ance to the owner
<br /> of one such ,lot must be consadered also. r; ° t � , ,
<br /> � : ;_ � , •
<br /> Pam Olson, 1520 Um,on, stated _th�at .she d�d not, sign �the �pet_ition Sup-
<br /> porti�ng,the appellant _. Ms,." Olson advised she does ,not believe the lot
<br /> is_wide enough,f,or` proper. duplex.developmentfbu�t,that it could
<br /> accommodate a single-family dwelling with perhaps a pool or tennis
<br /> court,in �the rear. �She,observed_that Un�on Street conta?rts a m�xture
<br /> of�single �` ' r � �
<br /> � � ..... Yu z_ l . � � 'h� b ���`ir� i. t � �� �. �
<br /> Frank Guida, 1127 King Street, advised that when the appellant last
<br /> , attempted to obtatn`a variance for'a "similar development on �the same
<br /> p�operty he represented hTm, but that he 1s not do�ng so�at this time.
<br /> Mr. Guida recalied that the previous ob,7ections were that the lot was
<br /> short.some three feet of 50 feet then,required, that ob�ections
<br /> , were made`to tne placement of'the�driveway which�is`now on'the other
<br /> � side of the lot, and that�there was insufficient`open s`pace"'"Mr. �
<br /> Guida stated that�in spite of the Ordinance which
<br /> now requires a minimum 60-foot width for duplex development, that Mr
<br /> Bozzolo is;entitled to the_variance s�nce he has altered the driveway
<br /> and his present�plan includes more open.space He stated,that there
<br /> are duplexes on each s�de of the sub,7ect`property. `
<br /> Pam Oison (see above) correctea Mr Guida, stating ,that-there is d
<br /> duplex�on one side of the su6,7ect property-and,a single-family home
<br /> on the other She stated there �s at ieast one single-family home on
<br /> the street for each_d'upl,ex un�t ` - '
<br /> � . C ., .. v .. ' . ' _ _ " . �
<br /> Vice Mayor Barrett invited anyone e7se present who wished to speak
<br /> to do so No one wi shed to speak. _ - r ' _'
<br /> _ . . . . _ . . . ,w .. _ _ -
<br /> MOTION Counc+7man Vega rroved, seconded by Councilman Rhodes, to
<br /> close the pudl�c hearing ,
<br /> , The motion carried�'unanimously by voice vote. "' �, _��, ,
<br /> Tne �ubl�c �+earing was ciosed,at 8 04 p.m '° ' '
<br /> i ' � `
<br /> -4 ' Reg.Mtg
<br /> � 11/28/77
<br />
|