Loading...
02063®E i 1 ` it, that the concrete slab already is there. The public portion of the ' Mr. Roy commented that the applicant had put in his hearing was closed. I foundation while he was still in the County and according to County require- ments, and he, Mr. Roy, would feel greatly put upon if it were he and he the would have to change his addition because he went from the County to Mr. Hatzenbuhler agreed, and said he did not think there would be City. that murleth said she undertood the concern of the ch of an impact. Mrs. De Board had neighbor, having a second story that close to her home, but the no jurisdiction over the part of the home that will be the second story, and the part that will be one story should not impact the neighbor very i given the existing foundation. MR. HATZENBUHLER MOVED, much, especially SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE V-30-79 BECAUSE IT MET THE CRITERIA AND IT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL i THE SITUATION WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT AND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED. A V-31-79 DENNIS and LINDA DUNCAN - Variance from required side,yard;setback at.1005>;,. Cascade Dr— The applicant wished to enclose an existing carport with an existing side a 10' side yard setback. This is } yard setback of 6' and the Code requires . somewhat older home around which there is substantial new construction. a 1 This is a corner lot and is required to met two front yard and two side 10' side yard setbacks. Several of the homes in the area do not meet the yard setback. .It would not be practical to reduce the size of the carport by 4' as it would reduce its usefulness as a two -car garage. Since it is i an.existing carport and there had been no complaints received about its a intrusion into the setback, the Staff felt it would not create problem. This home was constructed under a previous zoningrequirement. The Staff recommended approval of the -application because it was a minimum variance be to make reasonable use of the property, views or traffic would not obstructed, and it would allow for maximum use of the property by enclosing an existing carport. The public portion of the hearing was opened. The the lot is an oversized lot and he was not making any changes applicant said to the house. The only alterations would be to enclose the sides of the carport and install doors. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. 1 Mr. Roy felt this would-be a definite improvement as a carport generally is Mrs. Medina agreed, and I is a storage place that reveals what stored. Mr. Byrd saw no problems. Mrs. Derleth noted that it would be following 4 the existing lines. MR. LERAAS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. BYRD$ TO APPROVE'V- 4 31-79 AS.IT.WAS A MINIMUM .VARIANCE, THE STRUCTURE IS EXISTING'AND-T0 ENCLOSE IT WILL .ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT WILL -NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO'THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED. V-32-79 D. W. ABBEY - Variance from required side yard setback at 1351 8th Ave. S. The applicant wished to remove an.existing carport and construct a garage, the but constructing { using the existing paved driveway as access to garage to the of the existing carport. The existing side yard j the garage rear setback is 5' and the Code requires 7 1/2'. This is not a large lot and i the rear yard area would be diminished by moving the garage in by 2'. In addition, a jog would be necessary in the driveway if the garage were moved The in 21. There is a steep incline from the street to this property. property to the north is lower and there is a fence on the north property line that will almost completely screen the garage from the view of the neighbors and there are also trees which will screen the garage. Ms. Luster felt this was a reasonable request, considering the topography, the rear and that it location of existing driveway, and narrowness of yard, would be compatible with the overall development of the area. She recommended approval because it was a minimum variance, the addition would not interfere with views or traffic, and it would allow for the maximum use of the open ;1 area in the rear and the existing driveway. The public portion of the Mr. Roy hearing was opened. The applicant said his carport was the type had described earlier that exposes everything to everybody, so it would be BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 4 - May 16, 1979