Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0180 Staff Analysis4 .......... 64'-_ July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Lynette Drive - Building Line Waiver LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: vVnrtF-qT- 1819 Lynette Drive Richard Emmel To allow for the addition of a carport which will encroach 18' into an area established by a 25' platted building line. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This is located in the Twin Lakes area which is a residential subdivision of single family homes. The property in question is on flat ground and is closely bordered on the north and south by other homes. No drainage problems are apparent. All physical improvements are in place. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a request by the applicant for the approval of is a proposal which will include the enclosure of the existing garage and a 26' addition that- will be used as a carport. The proposed addition will encroach 18' into an area established by a 25' platted building line. The applicant feels justified in making this request because of a necessity for more space, due to an increase in the size of the household from three to five children. 1. Conformance to Ordinance This proposal varies from the Ordinance in the manner stated above. 2. Legal Considerations The need for an amended Bill of Assurance is the only thing evident at this time. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS None. 41 July 14, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued D. ANALYSIS Upon site investigation, Staff found no other homes in the immediate area that varied from the Ordinance in this manner. Staff, therefore, does not feel that the reason presented by the applicant is worth the risk of setting a precedent for future propositions of this sort. Since the applicant is the first in the area to present such a proposal, the granting of this request will be incompatible with the present state of the neiqhborhood. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Denial as filed, based on Staff's comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - ADVISORY OPINION The Commitee forwards this item for resolution by the full Commission without comment. (Vote 2-0-3) Hastings and Taylor. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were no objectors. In the absence of the applicant, the Commission discussed deferral but rejected that action in favor of a vote on the application as filed. The Commission denied the petition by a vote of 1 aye, 8 noes. 2 absent.