02304neighborhood, Mr. Byrd felt it•was best that the parties be left where they
were to begin with and the zoning ordinances be given appropriate and
proper application. He felt this would be detrimental and that the parties
should settle. their problems. Mr. Hatzenbuhler said he was finding it very
difficult to have this application meet all the criteria so he went back to
look at the site and he would not want to live there if this were approved.
He said the site was very close to Caspers'and he felt the proposal would
impact the neighborhood too much. He did not feel it met the criteria.
V-60-79 DONALD PATRICK — Variance from „required front yard setbacks on the east and,.
south sd ides at 815 Driftwood Lane (RS-12).
The requested variances were in conjunction with a 3-lot subdivision, with
an existing house on Lot 3 of the new subdivision. Lot 3 will become a
corner lot with this subdivision and the requested east variance is from
the.new road that will be created and now is in place as a driveway. The
south variance is from the new front line created by dedication of 9' to
the City. The required front setback is 25' and it would be reduced to 16'
on the south, and on the east it would be 16' diminishing to 2' at one
corner of the existing house. Mr. Pearson showed slides of the site and
recommended approval. The special circumstances for the variance from
Driftwood Lane were that the City requires the dedication and nothing
actually will change. The special circumstances for the variance from the
new road were that the road and house already were there. An alternative
would be to construct a road on the west side of the site but that would
create additional paving to serve the purpose that the existing drive could
serve. The public portion of the hearing was opened. John Marts, attorney
with the firm of Williams & Thompson Inc., representing adjacent property
owners Donald Bruns and Eugene Dahl, was opposed to the proposal. He said
those are flag lots and they were not given flag lot consideration in the
subdivision hearing and the subdivision will be appealed. He felt it would
be more reasonable to make one lot from Lots 1 and 2. He said the applicant
built his own home and positioned it where it is so that condition is a
result of his own actions. He asked that this item be continued until the
subdivision appeal is heard or to deny it at this time. He added that the
views of adjacent property owners will be adversely affected and the area
will be overcrowded by this proposal. Jurgen Sauerland of Lovell-Sauerland
& Associates, Inc., representing the applicant, stated that the subdivision
already had been approved and that he felt the setbacks could be met under
the flag lot determination. He said the flag lot determination was made by
the Staff and is being appealed, the appeal to be heard by the Planning
Commission and not a question for this Board. Also, he said that whether
view is being taken from a neighbor should not have a bearing on this item.
He noted that the roadway could have been placed on the west side of the
Property and no variances would be required, but they did not want to
encumber it with more asphalt. He noted that the criteria say profit
should not be a determination in the matter, so that should not be a con-
sideration for the Dahls and the Brunses. Further,that the variances are
minimal and will have a lesser effect on the surrounding properties than
increasing the asphalt surface. Wayne Meyers of 850 Northstream Rd. said
his property abuts this on the north and he felt the people should be able
to have full utilization of their property. He added that when he bought
his property he was aware that at some future date this probably would be
subdivided. The public portion of the hearing was closed. City Attorney
Larry Martin recommended to the Board that the determination as to flag
lots not be taken into consideration as it was not a part of this question.
Mrs. Medina said she had a hard time finding a 1' setback at the turnaround
a minimum variance. Mr. Hatzenbuhler did not think the turnaround would
adversely affect the house and he noted that the subdivision could go in --
it was only a matter of the driveway. The hearing was reopened to ask John
Marts if the opposition would remain the same or be different if the road
were proposed on the west side of the property. Mr. Marts did not answer
the question asked, but returned to the discussion of flag lots and their
requirements. The public portion of the hearing was reclosed. Chairman
Roy commented that other lots in this area are this size or smaller. Mrs.
Derleth noted that the existing house was built prior to that property's
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Page 2 - October 17, 1979