Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner McGuirk expressed concern that if they approve this <br />project they wou1d be setting a precedent whereby other houses <br />would be set on sites that were too small. Mr. Swift replied <br />that this project would have no real effect on other projects. <br />Staff did not feel that just because the lot tends to be a <br />parallelogram was a reason to grant a variance to the sideyard <br />setback requirement. <br /> <br />THE PUBLXC HEARXNG WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />COMMXSSXON'S COMMENTS <br /> <br />commissioner Hovingh said he felt that the granting of a variance <br />should not be based on what is intended to be built on the <br />property, but whether the findings can be made or not. He felt <br />there should be a very compelling reason for granting a variance, <br />and in this case, he felt he could not make the findings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti agreed with commissioner Hovingh's <br />comments that the granting of a variance should comply with the <br />ability to make the findings. She stated she went to the site <br />and felt the applicant has tried to work out the situation, but <br />the house as presented is not acceptable for the lot. She felt <br />it would take an architect with some imagination to make the <br />house fit the lot. She thought that the applicant might have to <br />get a different design to fit the site, and felt the design as <br />~ shown was too overpowering for the lot. She could not support <br />the application. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern said she, too, has gone to the site. She could <br />agree with staff on some of their thoughts, but after seeing the <br />drawing that the applicants set forth, she felt the lot could <br />have a special circumstance. She is somewhat concerned that the <br />house might be overpowering, but felt she could support the <br />application. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk said he could look at the situation in two <br />ways: He felt as one of the last lots available it was unusually <br />shaped and that overall he could grant the variance. On the <br />other hand he is concerned that if they approve the variance they <br />will be starting a chain reaction. He asked that staff continue <br />to practice their usual scrutiny as to whether a project should <br />be approved or not. As a whole, he said he could support the <br />request for a variance. <br /> <br />commissioner Wright concurred with Commissioners Hovingh and <br />Michelotti. He said he has visited the site, and after driving <br />around the area he felt there were a number of unique lots. He <br />felt that people usually buy a lot and then fit the architecture <br />to that site; he felt that this particular design could be <br /> <br />Minutes Planning ea..ission <br />JUDe 26, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />