08/22/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to which Mr. Saul replied there were a number of reasons, inclu~ing fi re protection /access and air circulation. Mr. Obie then . asked applicant if he would be willing to build a screen or fence between the adjacent properties, as a condition for approval. Mr. Anderson replied for the applicant that he would if the City would approve it. In addition, the applicant was willing to put a one-hour fire-protective wall on the house at the front of the property. Mr. Delay asked staff to explain why access had been approved for a shop but was now being denied for a residential area, and whether there had been a change in the Code. Mr. Saul responded Council was dealing with two totally different situations. The drive ex- isting provided access to the front house. Council is now being asked to create'two distinct pieces of property that could be in separate ownership where a driveway would belong to the rear property, not the front property. Mr. Williams expressed concern regarding response from the neighbors, noting Mr. Haws' comment that he was a neighbor and had not been in- formed of this hearing. Mr. Williams questioned staff whether the neighbors had been aware of this hearing "tonight." Mr. Saul replied none of the property owners had been notified of this special hearing, but all had been notified of the original request for the minor parti tion. At that time, no response had been received from any adjacent property owners and there was no legal requirement for notification of this hearing. Mr. Williams wondered if it was pos- sible for Council to ask that the neighborhood be polled before e making a final decision, to which Mr. Saul responded if Council so wished. Mr. Lieuallen perceived there had been an existing use which was not in violation of City policies, but then a change in policy creating the special panhandle lots occurred. He said Mr. Anderson was arguing on the basis of a grandfather clause that this variance should be allowed. However, in order to allow the variance, the five criteria in the Code would have to be satisfied, and he won- dered if Council should discuss those criteria. He said the one he had most difficulty with was the exceptional or extraordinary conditions. He assumed the other panhandle lots in the adjacent . properties satisfied the Code, and he did not see any exceptional circumstances in this particular request. Mr. Anderson, in his rebuttal, said he was not aware of any objections from neighbors. He said access to the rear lot could be granted by easement access and the property owners did not plan to sell. They will use the building, if approved, as a rental property. He said as far as the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, this building has existed for some time, and looks like a house from the outside. . 8/22/77--12 ~41.