02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - It was noted that panel members had viewed the site on tour. zoning Board minutes as they concerned the appeal on this issue by reference thereto were made a part of this record. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Appel and Mr. Boyin0ton presented their objections - deed restrictions in that area call for a 25' fro~t yard setback and city code requires a 20' setback, the 15'8" between the proposed garage and the property line would not allow enough room for parking autos without overhanging the sidewalk, precedent would be set for others in the neighborhood, aesthetic and property values would be damaged. They presented photos of the structure, and asked that it be removed. Also objecting was Martha Sauntry, 235 palomino Drive, who said the violation should not be con- tinued simply on the basis that errors had been made. She maintained that Mr.Gedekal was operating a furniture repair and cabinet shop at this residence. Mr. Gedeka1 told of his application for building permit, issuance of the permit, and halt of construction by the building inspector after most of the garage was constructed. He said he had done nothing illegal, the building had been constructed with permission of the city, and he said he was not operating a business from his home. He did have woodworking tools, he said, but his work was that of remodeling which was done away from the premises. upon questioning from Councilman Williams, it was brought out that in preparing plans for the building Mr. Cedekal had measured the distance from the curb line to the front of the proposed garage, 28', rather than from the property line or sidewalk, and that figure was presented for issuance of the building permit. Mr. Haxton explained that staff was not involved in any possible land use violation, referring to the claim that a cabinet shop was being operated in the residence. He said there was no evidence on inspection of the premises in connection with the set- back violation of anything but residential use in terms of home occupancy standards. In response to Councilwoman Beal, Mr. Haxton said there were no regulations against keeping or using power tools in one's home so long as the residential character of the premises was not jeopardized. Mr. Boyington wondered who would be held responsible if a child was injured de- touring into the street because of autos parked so as to overhang the sidewalk. Mr. Williams felt the same situation would apply if the structure was a carport rather than a garage, and a carport was entirely legal without a variance. Mr. Appel called attention to classified ads in the current phone book listing Sabel's Cabinet Shop at 372 palomino Drive. He stated too that he questioned whether the hardship would be as great as it was claimed in view of the fact that the application for building permit was submitted for a $600 addition to the house. Councilman Williams explained that the question in this instance was not one of improper home occupation; other sections of the code dealt with that issue. Any number of home occupations could be pursued legally, he said, so long as it was not detectable from the outside. Public hearing was closed. Recommendation: Deny the appeal, uphold action of Zoning Code Board of Appeals permitting the garage structure within the 20' setback; that the action be based on the findings that the Zoning Code Board of Appeals acted properly in saying a hardship would be created if issuance of the building permit were to be reversed and Mr. Gedeka1 required to remove the structure, recognizing that Carom multiple errors were made in granting the permit. 2/19/75 Approve 87 2/24/75 - 19