Laserfiche WebLink
William Sanders, board member, asks if there has been a plan for what is proposed to be re -built <br />there and if it satisfies the requirements. Andrew Mack states that though no site plan or building <br />plans have been submitted yet the applicants are aware of the required setbacks. <br />Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook states that in driving by the lot it does look like a narrow lot to <br />build on. City Staff member Paige Unger reassures her and the remaining board members that <br />though the required lot with for this particular zoning is 60' there are other residential zoning <br />districts that allow 50' lot widths and that the proposed home will be appropriate for the zoning <br />district. <br />Andrew Mack makes note of a typo on item 6 of the staff findings listed on the memo; it says the <br />lot is in SF -1 zoning when it should say SF -2. <br />Public hearing was declared open. <br />No one spoke in favor or opposition. <br />Public hearing was declared closed. <br />RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: <br />Jimmie Wilkerson of 614 NW 11th St, in favor. Stated it would improve the appearance of the <br />street. <br />Terry Hurd of 533 NW 1 lth St, in favor. <br />Michele and Ricky Hines of 541 NE 1 lth St, in favor. <br />Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to Section <br />9-210 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re -construction of a home on a 50' <br />wide lot vs. the required 60' width based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. <br />Motion carried 5:0. <br />Staff Recommended Findings of Fact <br />1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property which is not generally <br />common to other properties with older platted lots in the city, it is the intent of the city to <br />pursue changing the ordinance to make such variance requirements unnecessary in the future. <br />2. The literal compliance with Sections 9-201 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary <br />hardship given the fact that this is an existing lot of record, is substandard in lot width and <br />depth, and the proposed two-family dwelling cannot be constructed without a variance. <br />3. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article. <br />4. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property <br />