09/09/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

home. She doubts this since the home would be about 150 feet away from his because of the width, and the style of the house would be more consistent with the style and value of his home, not hers. She believed that the city would get more taxes, and hopefully, hers would d.iminish a bit since she would not have to pay taxes on a vacant lot. She noted that Bretton Ridge has experienced a number of changes since its conception: I-480 has split it; Cambridge Crossings was built in the past five or s'vx years; and new homes are being built on all the vacant property. She noted that many of the homes on the cul de-sacs are on smaller lots. She is asking that the planniug commission and board of zoning appeals consider this so that she can maintain her property more decently and also provide a home for someone who wants to live there. Mr. Buford representing Mr. Stotz, property owners adjacent to this lot, presented a petirion signed by 31 residents who are opposed to this lot split and a letter objecting to the proposal to split this lot into two. (Letter is attached, petition is included in file). Mr. Buford added that he lived right around the corner on this street, and he advised that the previous owner of the properry only put in sidewalks around half of the property, which was a safety concern. Since the city could not force tlie owner to complete the sidewalks, Councilman Nashar was instrumental in having sidewalks installed which improved the appearance and safety of the area. He believed that three variances were excessive. He pointed out that Mrs. Gaspar had been there only 2 or 3 years, and when she purchased this property it was obvious there would be a lot of maintenance: Prior to buying this property, he was advised by the city that the chances of variances being granted to put a house on this property were next to nothing because of its shape and size . Councihnan Nashar advised that he had visited the Stotz property and this home would be in Mr. Stotz's backyard, blocking his view from his patio. He noted that the residents are strongly objecting to tlie three variances needed to construct a home. He asked that if a home is to be bu.ilt there, it should conform to the homes on the western end of Bretton Ridge Drive. Mrs. Gaspar responded that the home would be more consistent with homes in Cambridge Crossings than with those in Bretton Ridge; the drawings were available; the house is 150 feet away from his home; and his view will not be blocked. She questioned that this would devaluate his property, since the homes around the corner in Bretton Ridge were about two thirds the value of his home. Mr. Buford stated that Mrs. Gaspar lnew what she was getting when she bought the property and Mrs. Stotz and the neighbors were opposed to this proposal. Mr. Brennan questioned how a home on this lot could be compatible with either the homes in Bretton Ridge or the homes in Cambridge Crossing, since it would have to be quite a bit smaller because of the size of the lot. Mrs. Gaspar stated that the style was compati`ble. Mr. Brennam noted that, based on square footage, it could not be compatible and would not fit in. Mrs. Gaspar stated that she has been told that she has more square footage in her home, than some of the homes in Cambridge Crossings. She asked how this will effect the immediate neighbors. Mr. Tallon advised that the commission is here to discuss the lot split, not the house. Ndr. Buford noted that Ms. Cifranic, who lives directly adjacent, has also signed the petition. R. Tallon moved to deny the J. & K Builders Lot Split proposal to split permanent parcel no. 234-17- 037 into two (2) Lots. Locarion is the south side of Bretton Ridge Drive. Zoning is "A" Residence, Single entirely; one proposed sublot (with an existing house) conforms to Zoning Code requirements, but the other proposed sublot is deficient in required area, depth, and rear yard set back variance will be required. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the commission must recommend that the board of zoning appeals deny the proposaL Chairman Tallon moved to amend the motion to make a recommendation to the board of zoiring appeals to deny the variance for a lot split on permanent parcel number 234-17-037 as previously indicated. This commission does not like to create non-conforming lots and based upon tliose principaLs would like to have those variances denied. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, aud unanimously approved. 2) MacDonald Consolidation.Plat. _ 2