Laserfiche WebLink
Session 170 I, Minutes <br />July 7, 1997 <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Pedersen requested to speak. Mayor Adams granted his request. Mr. Pedersen said that the open space question <br />was discussed at the Plan Commission meeting and that the answer given was that if you have a fifteen by twelve foot patio, <br />that is open space. If you add a screened in porch, it really does not take away from open space and as part of the open <br />space requirements that the subdivision was to have, the common area is supposed to take care of that. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel required some clarification from the City Manager, that if Council votes in the affirmative for this change, that in <br />essence Council would be changing the set up of the entire subdivision and that Council is also authorizing variances for each <br />and every piece of property in it. Mr. Ollendorff said that he was correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorffsaid that the conditional use permit that now exists, covers the entire subdivision. Council is being asked to <br />amend the permit, which will affect every lot in the subdivision. Mr. Ollendorff said that Council could not give a conditional <br />use permit variance to just one lot, because the existing permit covers the entire subdivision. Mr. Pedersen commented <br />that the by laws require that the Homeowners Association also approve these edifices or additions, so that at anytime <br />another homeowner would wish to put one up, a building permit would have to be processed. The Homeowners <br />Association recognizes that they do not want to have make shif~ or inappropriate structures in the subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Ware stated that the Council should be very cautious about giving a conditional use permit for an entire subdivision. He <br />sees it like putting a swimming pool in the back yard - not everyone will have one and those that can afford to have one and <br />those who can meet the specific requirements of code will have one. He believes that if the Homeowners Association <br />actually looks at the entity as a separate entity, this conditional use amendment might not be a very bad thing to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Eugene Reuben, 923 Barnard College Lane, is a neighbor of the Kirks. He is one of the first owners in the subdivision <br />from back to 1989. He strongly supports the request for the addition of a enclosed porch. The neighborhood, when these <br />original amendments were put forth, did not have the personality of the people there. We now have almost ninety of the <br />hundred homes sold. The ones that are not sold, are just the town homes on Hanley. People have discussed this issue <br />thoroughly at several different meetings. A vote was then taken and 83 percent of the people supported it and no verbal <br />opposition was received. The neighborhood is beautiful with lovely landscaping, and will remain so even with this little <br />structure goes up. There were still be trees around it. This subdivision probably has more trees per unit than any other <br />neighborhood in University City. The homeowners would like the flexibility and freedom to do what they want in their <br />small back yards that does not influence anyone else and which will increase home values. He does not believe that many <br />people will request this. It is an expensive, personal choice to make. He believes that with the proper safeguards, people <br />should be allowed to build these structures as an added measure of enjoying their homes. <br /> <br />Mr. Ueberman wanted to comment that the zoning code, certainly respectful in University City, is a very good document <br />that could be lived up to, because it was designed originally for spaced out single family homes. He believes it has served its <br />purpose. This particular subdivision is a unique subdivision. It is not like any other subdivision we have, in the way the <br />homes are built, the way they are close together. It was designed especially for the kind of use that it is currently getting and <br />he thinks that it is unique enough to make the kinds of waivers to the zoning code as is recommended by the Plan <br />Commission. The Council has the prerogative to these changes and should consider doing so very seriously. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer said that he was very torn by this request. He wants to support the zoning code and especially the set back <br />requirements. He knows, absolutely, that down the line this encroachment is going to raise all kinds of issues of enjoyment <br />and infringement of use. There may even be litigation over it, but since this is a private subdivision, and they are free to <br />govern their own usage within it, he would like to vote against his motion to deny. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner requested caution on this issue and that he, personally, has nothing against the screened in porch in the rear <br />yard, but he does have a lot against the vehicle that the Council is being asked to vote on, which goes against the zoning <br />code and which asks to modify a previously approved site plan for the whole subdivision. He thinks Council should get <br />another vehicle by which someone can get a screened in porch approved, without changing the entire subdivision <br /> <br /> <br />