2006_0925_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.5 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: This particular neighborhood has been improved over a number of years. Recent homes were constructed in the late 1990's and early 2000's, while others date back to the 1950's. This would explain some of the variation in front yard and side yard setbacks, but does not necessarily su�port such an allowance on this parcel. However, the allowance to afford home design flexibilitywould only enhance the new home and lead to a design that better fits the general character of the neighborhood. The Planning Division has concluded that the allowance of a 15-foot VARIANCE will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 5.0 STAFF/VARIANCE BOARD RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 At the public hearing on September 6,2006, the City Planner recommended approval of the requested VARIANCE based on the findings of Section 43 to 4.5 as indicated above and subject to the following conditions: a. The encroachment being limited to 15 feet from the front property line adjacent to Dale Court. b. The design of any hnrnelattached garage must minimize the impact of the encroachment — be designed in such a manner that the �aoac�e/attached garage are positioned angular (not 90%) to Dale Court. c. The homelattached garage design must be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee. d. The variance (if granted) shall expire within 1 year of its approval if a building permit is not issued pursuant to $1013.03 of the City Code. 5.2 On September 6,2006 the Variance Board held the public hearing regarding the WeIeczki/Tllif`request. At the meeting two adjacent property owners spoke in opposition to the request and Variance Board members asked questions of staff and the applicant. 53 Specifically, one adjacent resident was frustrated that the postcard indicated the report would be available Friday, September 1, but that he could not optain the report off the web page —asked that the request be postponed until he received z�o�re details about request. He added that a concern was over site lines and vehicles parked on site and thous traveling on Dale Court creating a safety hazard. He also asked whether the public waslwoul be invited to the Design Review Committee meeting where the home plan would be reviewed and potentially approved. 5.4 Another adjacent resident stated that the request is a direct result of the minor subdivision of 2Q05 and that a variance should not be supported. PF3F8 ] RC�4 �lp�ca] _OS��U� I's�� ti� � 5