pf_03459 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 conditions: 1) garage window must match other windows, 2) additional landscaping 2 done to break up the mass of the north building wall. 3 4 Chair Duncan said he was concerned about harm to adjacent neighbor. 5 6 Member Traynor said property use as proposed is reasonable. The Beans did not create 7 the situation, but may alter the character of the residential block - it would be a change; 8 Member Mulder's conditions help. Member Stone agreed with Member Traynor's 9 comment on character impact. 10 11 Thomas Paschke noted that lot coverage is a problem with all houses, but adding a 12 second floor can be done without variances. The real issue is the garage and setback. 13 14 Member Bakeman expressed concerns with two variances (not just one). 15 16 Member Mulder explained that he could find no alternative except to move from the site. 17 A two car garage is a minimum improvement. This solution is the best of the 18 alternatives. The neighbor has no control over the air rights. 19 20 Chair Duncan explained this may be similar to the shore land fence obstructing a view or 21 creating a visual impact. 22 23 Member Peper explained that a second floor to the house could be moved to a five foot 24 setback but then impacts the design of the existing house and entry. 25 26 Member Ipsen noted that either decision imposes hardship on one of the properties. He 27 considered abstaining. 28 29 Member Mulder explained that no case has been similar to this. 30 31 Member Bakeman asked for details on the front porch, entry and kitchen design. 32 33 Chair Duncan explained an alternative such as a rear garage and extended driveway could 34 also be an impact on adjacent land owners. 35 36 Vote on roll call: 37 Ayes: 4, Peper, Traynor, Mulder Ipsen 38 Nays: 3, Bakeman, Stone, Duncan 39 Motion carried 4-3.