Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />basically the ones requested would permit lower ceiling and door heights than <br />required by code. He stated Mr. Gross' intention of maintaining the building <br />in a habitable condition that would be a credit to the city. <br /> <br />An unidentified young lady, 2068Yz Garden Avenue, stated her belief that the ceiling tIJ. <br />and door heights as ~roposed would be adequate and would not detract from the dwell- I-A-7 <br />as a good place to llve. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to deny the appeal and uphold the <br />decision of the Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals to grant the <br />variances as requested. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Shirey asked whether a health hazard was involved. Mick Nolte, super- <br />intendent of building inspection, answered that the question of health hazard <br />could be addressed in rehabilitating the building in line with code requirements. <br /> <br />Councilman Haws, stating that the only issues apparently were ceiling and door <br />heights, felt the appellant had not met the burden of proof. Councilman Murray <br />concurred and sai~ he felt there was not substantial reason to deny the variances, <br />all that was necessary was that the dwelling be safe and inhabitable in other ways. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council <br />members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley abstaining. <br /> <br />E. Panhandle Lot Policy <br /> <br />Panhandle Lot Policy - Copies of pro[XJsed revision of policy statement were previously", <br />distributed and some Council members viewed examples of panhandle lots on tour. Jim ~ <br />Saul, planner, explained the city has had a policy statement since 1973. There have - <br />been two problems with it; the Planning Commission had to designate a particular <br />area as appropriate for that type of development, and resulting lots had to be <br />approximately the same size as existing lot sizes in the immediate area. The <br />problem was that the Planning COmnUssion had only designated the State Street area <br />as appropriate. Staff was required to judge all other requests in comparison to <br />lot sizes in the areas in question. <br /> <br />In reviewing the policy, said Mr. Saul, it became evident that there is conflict <br />between the restrictive policy on panhandle lots and the concepts of the 1990 Plan <br />to encourage more efficient utilization of property. The proposed policy statement <br />recognizes the intent of the 1990 Plan to encourage efficient land use while <br />acknowledg_~llg the expressed desire of neighborhoods to maintain their character. <br />The recom dation provides ways in which that can be enhanced, including parcel <br />size, type of setback standards for driveways, screening requirements, etc. <br />Mr. Saul added that the division of land through the panhandle process is <br />simply one mechanism for intensive land utilization within the city. The <br />Planning Cummission will be hearing a proposal June 1 in conjunction with <br />this which will consider a technique of allowing more than single-family <br />developolent on larger parcels. <br /> <br />Mrs. Shirey asked about the relationship between this matter and street <br />access into undeveloped areas. She feels the two should be considered <br />together. <br /> <br />Mr. Saul responded that it is possible to address both together but that <br />the problem of access into streets is much more complex and is requiring <br />extensive staff treatment before it can be considered. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5/24/76 - 4 <br /> <br />R"5 <br />