CCP 11-09-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, November 4, 1987 i'age 2 Case 1187-31 (Cont'd) Hansen advised they had considered the alternative discussed by the Planner, .however, placement at the required setback would detract from the Bank building; he also had considered at walk-up facility, however, for safety reasons it was determined that customers would be more comfortable in a drive-up situation. . Commission members discussed parking and signage requirements. Miller advised th,at the applicant would meet bo~h signage and parking required. Moved by Petersen, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Coun,:il approval of Case #87-31, Setback Variances for Accessory Structure, Roseville Bank, 4061 North Lexington Avenue, as shown in the proposed plan attached to Planner's report, for a 5 ft. setback variance from County Road F, a 15 ft. setback variance from Lexington Avenue and a variance to permit accessory structure in front yard; justification for the variances based on the following reasons: a. The setback of the principal structure and the established vehicular circulations makes it impossible to place the ATM in a location visible from both streets without placing it in the front yard area. b. The proposE!d location for the ATM is necessary to provide adequate visbility, safety and vehicular circulation. c. The proposE!d placement of the ATM does not negatively impact adjacent properties, Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CASE 1187-32; VAR. Planner Miller explained the applicant is proposing to REARYARD SETBACK, construct a 10 ft. x 12 ft. room addition to the rear . 1891 LAKE LANE, of her house. The existing structure has a rear yard D. KIEFFER setback of 15 feet; new addition would extend to within 5 feet of the rear property line, requiring a 25 foot setback variance (30 foot setback current requirement). Miller stated that the subject lot is only 75 feet deep; typical of lots on the north side of Lake Lane. Because of this limited depth, enforcement of both front and rear setbacks would make the lots unbuildable, which is why the existing rear setback is only 15 feet. He noted that at least three houses on lots along the north side of Lake Lane have rear setbacks of 6 to 8 feet; most recent variance granted in the area was a 24 ft. setback variance for a room addition similar to this proposal. The Planner referred Commission members to the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting, 10-15-87, recommending a variance for a setback of 6 feet from the rear property line (24 foot setback variance), and noted that the adjacent rear neighbor had expressed no opposition to the proposed expansion. Miller pointed out that the house directly north of the subject property has a rear yard setback of approximately 50 feet, aud that existing large setback could be considered a mitigating factor in terms of building separation. Delores Kieffer, 1891 Lake Lane, was present to answer any questions. Member Zehm questioned if the applicant had considered placement of the addition on the west side of her property. .