08/22/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0: Appeal from decisions of Planning Commission and Zoning Board of tit II-A-2 Appeals re: property located 3970 Marshall Avenue (Jack Gilbert) Unanimously denied by Planning Commission October 25, 1976. Mr. Saul indicated Council had received the background information giving the history of the subject property. He said the property consisted of approximately 17,975 square feet, and at the present time there is a single-family residence on the property. There also is an unattached building which under the building permit for accessory structures was to serve only as a shop for the owners and not as a residential unit. The owners have requested a minor partition to create a second lot and convert the shop to a second residence. The Planning Commission denied the request on the grounds that to comply with the Code and panhandle policies, would require 20 feet: five feet side yard for existing house, and 15 feet for access to the proposed back lot. Applicant, after denial of request for minor land partition by Planning Staff, appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. After Planning Commission's denial, he sought a variance on side yard requirements from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Having been denied by both Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, the joint denials are now being heard by Counci 1 . No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff Notes and minutes of October 25, 1976 were received as part of the record by reference thereto. tit Public hearing was opened. Bruce Anderson, 101 East Broadway, attorney for the applicant, entered applicant's five exhibits (on file in Manager's office). He gave a history of the applicant's request, starting with a build- ing permit in 1974 for the construction of a shop at the rear of the lot. A slide presentation was given showing the property and adjacent properties with panhandle lots. The applicant was asking to maintain a realistic use of his property which would not be out of character with the neighborhood, that Council either allow a variance for the side yard requirements or a variance for the 15-foot driveway. He said there is a recognized need for more residential housing in the city, and the waiver for variances would then make the front lot - meet the necessary legal status. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen asked what standards had to be met to grant variances. Mr. Saul read from City Code, Section 9.752, which required Council find affirmatively on all five points. Mr. Obie questioned the applicant as to the estimated number of trips made daily when the building was used as a shop for the busi- ne s s . Applicant replied between 20 and 24 per day. Mr. Obie then questioned staff as to the reason for the five-foot side yard setback, e 8/22/77--11 bLfl