11-14-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 ZONING TILE #1329-MCNELLIS CONTINUED width of the lot was a hardship the Planning Commission overlooked. 65' was not a lot of space in which to build the proposed house. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that the applicant should have been aware of the restrictions prior to buying the lot_ Mr. McNellis agreed, but said he did not understand all of the variances. The 26' setback from the 10' easement came as a surprise to him. Mr. McNellis reiterated the fact that the house would be virtually invisible. Bellows explained to Mr. McNellis that the Planning Commission's concern was how the land works, not who can see the house. It may be true that the proposed house had very little visual impact, however, it does present quite a bit of environmental impact. The applicant requested the Planning Commission table this matter and allow him the opportunity to do more study of how to approach the variance problems. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1332 MARCELO GUMUCIO 980 PERPDALE ROAD WEST AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC BEARING - 11:27 P.M. - 11:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant's architect was present in lieu of the applicant. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that the architect should be fined for his lack of compliance with the City's variance requirements. She felt that the language setting forth the requirements was perfectly clear. She did not think that the applicant/owner should be penalized for the unprofessionalism of the architect. The architect stated that he thought it ridiculous to have to come before the Planning Commission for the type of pillars he was pr-)posing. The guidelines were not specific as to those items. "'here were no comments from the public rLgarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Johnson, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of #1332, per staff recommendations. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the hardship in this instance. The architect indicated that safety was a factor in that the lights on the pillars were necessary to light an inadequately lit driveway. Motion, Ayes-4, Kelley -Nay due to a lack of hardship. 30