File #: 16-0094R    Name:
Type: Resolution Status: Failed
File created: 1/29/2016 In control: Planning and Economic Development
On agenda: 2/8/2016 Final action: 2/8/2016
Title: RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY BILL BROWNELL AND PAT BROWNELL STERNER A VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL-TRADITIONAL (R-1) SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT 3427 LAKE AVENUE SOUTH.
Attachments: 1. Attachment 1, 2. Attachment 2, 3. Attachment 3, 4. Attachment 4
Title
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY BILL BROWNELL AND PAT BROWNELL STERNER A VARIANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL-TRADITIONAL (R-1) SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT 3427 LAKE AVENUE SOUTH.

Body
CITY PROPOSAL:
RESOLVED, that the city council finds as follows:
(a) On December 15, 2015, Mike Medlin, on behalf of Bill Brownell and Pat Brownell Sterner, submitted an application for a variance from the side yard setback standard in the Residential-Traditional (R-1) zone district;
(b) The side yard setback requirement for all properties zoned R-1 is six feet. Single family homes, and proposed additions to existing homes, must be at least six feet from the side lot property line;
(c) The property at 3427 Lake Avenue South is approximately 80 feet wide by 100 feet long, and the home was originally built in 1908. In December 2011 the property owner received from the Planning Commission a variance to add a 22' by 24' two story addition, increasing the home's total square footage to 2,330 square feet. The variance requested was to build the two story addition seven feet from the rear lot line when the R-1 rear yard setback requirement is 25 feet;
(d) This subsequent variance application is proposing to add a 12.8' by 10' kitchen addition to the ground floor of the single family home. There will also be a minor addition to the second floor, converting an existing office into a fifth bedroom. The single family home is two feet from the side property line; four feet of the proposed 12 foot addition will be within the side yard setback, necessitating the need for a variance;
(e) The planning commission considered the application at its January 12, 2016, regular meeting. Following the closing of the public hearing, the planning commission voted 6-0 to deny the variance request. The denial was based on the fact that the variance application did not meet the general criteria for variances Section 50-37.9.C, it did not...

Click here for full text