Laserfiche WebLink
357 <br /> <br /> Mr. Peel informed Mr. Danesh that the side of the proposed <br />house that would face Mr. Danesh's property would be the garage <br />side and would have no windows. He added that the second story <br />would be about another ten feet away and would also have no windows <br />looking down on the adjacent property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike Barnes, with his wife Debbie, 968 Gray Fox Circle, <br />Mr. Peel's neighbors to the south, stated that there is a hill <br />between the two properties and that he had no objections to the <br />infringement of a small corner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eric Okamoto, 2817 Gray Fox Court, inquired if Mr. Peel's <br />proposal violated a community plan and if it would impose a <br />different set of standards for future houses that may be built on <br />the empty lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer replied that the issue is one of process rather <br />than of design. He explained that in order to grant a variance, <br />State law requires that three findings be made in terms of the <br />uniqueness of the property, in relation to other properties in the <br />neighborhood, to protect the property rights of all those who may <br />be impacted by the proposed plan. He continued that both Staff and <br />the Planning Commission could not make the findings; therefore, Mr. <br />Peel appealed the case to the Council to see if the Council could <br />make those findings. He added that granting a variance does not <br />set a precedent unless lots are identical, which is not the case <br />here. He pointed out that there are different conditions and <br />restrictions for different areas in the community depending on the <br />zoning of those areas. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if there was a minimum lot size for the <br />subdivision when it was approved about eight years ago. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the lot sizes were created with the <br />development plan. He explained that the original development plan <br />had about ten very large lots which were subsequently rearranged <br />to create new lots that would better fit into the existing <br />topography. He indicated that the lots on the section of the road <br />where Mr. Peel's property sits are smaller than on the other side. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the homes on the lots across the street <br />are comparable in size to the proposed unit. <br /> <br /> - 9 - <br /> 8-6-91 <br /> <br /> <br />