CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- 469 them, and, in response to question, advised that there is no provision to return an application for variance to the Planning Commission with suggested changes by the appellant, stating that a new submittal is a new application. , Discussion followed concerning the basis for the recommendation of the Fire Department regarding width of the driveway, the need for the Fire Department to consider individual circumstances as they arise with re- gard to fire safety with the minimum driveway width not always being � adequate, and the difficulty of developing a lot of substandard w�dth. John Kast 1612 Union, neighbor to sub�ect property, stated he believes the proposed duplex would be an attractive addition to the street and urged Council to reverse the Planning Commission decision in order that the building may be constructed Pam Olson, 1520 Union, ob�ected to the patio area of the proposed dup�x being considered open space, suggested there is too much con- crete visible, and stated that other duplexes on the street are owned by persons who also reside in them Fritz Neumann, 1616 Union, neighbor to the sub�ect property, suggested the proposed duplex is poorly designed and stated that his privacy would be lost if the property owner is permitted to construct a long driveway which would run alongside his bacftyard Lengthy discussion continued and Mr Fales, Mr Schricker and Mr Schoenfeld cortunented and replied to questions concerning the R-2 zoning of the sub�ect property, whether it would be possible to con- struct a duplex on the sub�ect property in view of the 50-foot frontage ' requirement, the fact that the total lot size more than meets the re- quirement for total square footage, the fact that it is likely the appellant's suggested ad�ustment to meet open space requirements is not acceptable, the status of the application for variances and whether or not resubmittal of altered plans might be possible imnediately; the fact that no advice can be given regarding whether or not an altered,plan might be permitted until the plan is available , for consideration MOTION: Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Councilman Rhodes, to close the public hearing The rtation carried unanimously by voice vote. The public hearing was closed at 8 24 p m. , MOTION Councilman Bury moved, seconded by Councilman Norris, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal for the ap- plication of Michael D and Michele Lincoln for variance to permit con- struction of two dwelling units on substandard lot, 1614 Union Avenue Councilman Norris stated for the record that the Fire Department should provide the criteria used in recommending requirements which exceed the minimum requirements, stating that he does not question the occa- , sional need for increased requirements, but merely believes the reasons for recommending them should be made clear The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote (MINUTE ORDER NO 76-197) -3- Reg Mtg 7/12/76