Laserfiche WebLink
ft!' <br />.V: <br />It <br />■■I <br />ii-- <br />/[r-l <br />:V-I <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 <br />(#8)ZONING FILE #1626-TRAFF CONTINUED <br />th® street on tiie market lor sa-s. *ne nartsr.ip is that <br />the existing house is too small, and because it is located on the <br />lot line, we cannot add onto the nouse. The plan v/e have <br />submitted seems to be the best solution." <br />Bob .Mitchell, Attorney, stated that he is not related to Jim <br />and Patricia Mitchell, but that he is here this evening, as their <br />lawyer, on their behalf. Mitchell stated that the Traff’s plan <br />liAS t>aan revised in that it nc longer sho^vs an addition <br />encroaching toward the Mitchells' residence. He said, "The <br />Mitchells' main concern was the side yard Variance that would <br />have been required with the plan we received. Tney are still <br />concerned about the size of the Traff’s lot and the placement of <br />the proposed house toward the front of the lot. They would <br />prefer to see the house pushed back further on the lot." <br />Traff responded, "In answer to the Mitchell's concern about <br />placing the house back further, I would agree to push the house <br />back five feet. Roily Lacy and I re-configured the average <br />setback line to extend from the middle of the Mitchells' house to <br />the Lacy house, which brings the line back approximately five <br />feet." <br />Rollin Lacy, 2555 North Shore Drive, stated that he had no <br />objections to th-^ Traff's proposal. He said, ’’I would suggest to <br />the Planning Commission that you look at how properties are laid <br />out in relation to adjoining properties when considering the <br />sight lines." <br />Kelley agreed with Mr. Lacy. <br />Bellows stated that the Traff's plan is an improvement over <br />what currently exists. Shf^ reiterated her position on the <br />importance of seeing a floor plan with applies ons such as this. <br />Bellows stated that it is difficult to substantiate the hardship <br />in this case without seeing a floor plan. <br />Hanson stated that since it is the applicant's intention to <br />start over from scratc.h, ha cannot justify approving the side <br />yard setback Variance. <br />John Bluroentritt stated that ha h,is started drawing the <br />floor plan schematics that would support tha Traff's position. <br />Bellows supported Hanson's statements <br />Kelley stated that he is indifferent <br />Traff stated that the Planning Commission had looked <br />favorably this evening on several requests for Variances and <br />- 14 - <br />is* V