08/22/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He felt there were unusual and extraordinary circumstances, as e it is suitable for a residence, the City needs additional housing, it is not out of conformity with the area, and if not granted, the building would go unused and deteriorate. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the panhandle lot request be approved, and that variance to the five-foot side- yard be allowed, subject to building a sight-obscuring fence to the front dwelling unit and subject to a one-hour firewall on the front property if needed. Mr. Obie continued he had a great deal of concern regarding the City's Panhandle Lot Policy. However, it appeared here was a situ- ation where the building does exist, and many trips in and out of the driveway had taken place prior to this request. He had to agree there were exceptional and ordinary circumsances existing because the neighborhood had allowed three other panhandle lots adjacent to th is prope rty . He felt if the variance was in order, then a request for a panhandle lot was in order. He felt the housing needs and policy of the City at least demand the Council IS attention, that Council had to take some responsibility for allowing creation of a lot that was 204 feet deep and some responsibility for resolving that issue. He felt if there were no objections from the neighborhood, this would be the best solution. Mr. Williams agreed with most of Mr. Obie's comments but not his conclusion. He felt the other aspect that Council should consider e was if the Panhandle Policy was incorrect on the width of roadway and side yard setback, then that Panhandle Policy should be changed. His concern was establishing a variance policy that might encourage others to bypass the process. He felt it might invite abuse of the City's po 1 i cy . Vote was taken on the motion which failed, with Obie voting aye; Lieuallen, Smith, and Williams voting no; Haws, Delay, and Bradley abstaining. There was question about Mr. Delay abstaining after seconding the motion. Mr. Delay said he was abstaining because he could come to no adequate decision. Legal counsel advised this created no problem ._ Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the appeal be denied; staff be directed to prepare findings of fact based on the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and testimony presented at "tonightls" meeting that the hardship required by the zoning ordinance had not been established satisfactory to Council's wishes. e 8/22/77--13 lolf3