2012_12_05_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes - Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Vice Chair Strohmeier called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and 2 reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 2. Roll Call & Introductions 4 City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Vice Chair Peter Strohmeier and Commissioners Michael Boguszewski 6 and Jeff Lester 7 Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke and Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 8 3. Review of Minutes 9 MOTION 10 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Strohmeier, to approve meeting 11 minutes of September 05, 2012 meeting as presented. 12 Ayes: 3 13 Nays: 0 14 Motion carried. 15 4. Public Hearings 16 Vice Chair Strohmeier reviewed meeting protocol for Public Hearings. 17 a. Planning File 12-019 18 Request by Adam and Linda Wigfield for approval of a VARIANCE to Chapter 1004 19 (Residential Districts) of City Code to allow a reduced principal structure setback 20 from the rear property line at 1716 Maple Lane 21 Vice Chair Strohmeier opened the Public Hearing at approximately 5:33 p.m. 22 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief review of the request of Mr. and Mrs. 23 Wigfield to allow a twelve foot (12’) addition to the attached garage, which would then 24 stand approximately six and one half feet (6.5”) from the rear property line at its closest 25 point. Mr. Lloyd advised that the existing, nonconforming setback and the proposed 26 garage addition are consistent with the treatment of that part of the property as a side 27 yard rather than a rear yard since the home was constructed, and a circumstance not 28 created by the applicant. In addition, Mr. Lloyd noted that the entire history of this 29 residential parcel abutting public park space, and construction of the attached garage in 30 its present location and this proposed garage addition, represented a practical difficulty 31 that the variance process is intended to relieve. 32 Member Boguszewski, in observing that Oasis Park was owned by the City and from a 33 practical standpoint related to the rear and side lines, suggested that any objection 34 should come from the City and only related to ingress/egress. Member Boguszewski 35 questioned if there was any indication from the City of potential harm from granting this 36 variance. 37 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had heard no concerns expressed to-date; and reviewed the 38 location of the Oasis Park parking lot, as well as non-motorized access on the other side; 39 opining that the garage addition should not infringe on that. Mr. Lloyd further noted that 40 the proposed garage extension would be in the same area, to some degree, of the 41 existing detached shed adjacent to the existing garage. 42 Member Boguszewski observed that the garage itself would appear to already encroach 43 into the setback area creating a precedent that the thirty foot (30’) setback was currently 44 not being followed; and questioned whether a previous variance had been applied for. 45