Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Meeting Minutes <br /> August 26, 1997 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • front yard setback. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the five <br /> findings in the staff report. <br /> Commissioner Minton questioned where the new driveway would be. Scott <br /> explained the layout. <br /> Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the <br /> public, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. <br /> Mark Leadens, applicant, explained the reasons for his request. <br /> Commissioner Minton questioned why garage addition could not be <br /> perpendicular to the house and why the existing driveway could not be used. <br /> Mr. Leadens explained that the angle of approach would be too severe. <br /> The Planning Commissioners discussed alternatives for placement for the addition. <br /> Steve Stewart, Ogden Street resident, expressed his support for the request. <br /> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY <br /> MARK AND PENNY LEADENS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 97-7, BASED ON THE <br /> FOLLOWING FINDINGS: <br /> 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN <br /> THAT BY NOT ALLOWING THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE, EITHER THE ADDITION <br /> WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A LESS COST EFFECTIVE MANNER OR <br /> THE APPLICANT WILL BE FORCED TO RELOCATE. <br /> 2. THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY <br /> PROHIBITS THE CONSTRUCT OF AN ADDITION IN ANY LOCATION EXCEPT OFF <br /> OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.THE HOUSE WAS IN THIS <br /> LOCATION WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANT. <br /> 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD <br /> DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE <br /> SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE OTHER <br /> HOUSES IN THE AREA ARE MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THEIR LOT AND <br /> HAVE ROOM FOR EXPANSIONS. <br /> 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A <br /> CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. <br /> 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE <br /> HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR <br /> NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WILL BE IN KEEPING <br /> WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. LANDSCAPING AND <br /> DESIGN FEATURES CAN BE USED TO SOFTEN THE VISUAL IMPACTS ON THE <br /> NEIGHBORHOOD. <br /> COMMISSIONER COTE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. <br /> 4.4 Tim Smith Reauest for Variance. Public Hearing Case No,V 97 <br />