2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.1 On September 6,2006 the Variance Board held the public hearing regarding the �V'eleczki/T1lifrequest. At the meeting two adjacent property owners spoke in opposition to the request and Variance Board members asked questions of staff and the applicant. 5.2 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 more 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. 5.3 Another adjacent resident stated that the request is a direct result of the minor subdivision of 2005 and that a variance should not be supported. 5.4 Variance Board members also asked questions of staff and the applicant to further understandthe proposed variance request. Members also discussedprevious concern and comments regarding L�Saar opposition to granting variances when the Planning Coimmission reviewed and supported the Minor subdivision in 2005. 5.5 The Variance Board voted 3-0 to DENY the request for a 15 foot variance to Section 1004.01(Residential Dimensional Requirements— Friont Yard Setback) of the City Code, concluded that the applicant has not demonistrated that a"hardship" exists in order for the Board to approve the VAEUANCE. 5.6 Specifically member poherty stated his concern/oppasitio�. to a variance ihat supports a structure that would be out of character with the neighborhood, may potentially obstruct the view of traveling vehicles creating a child safety hazarrd, reduce the required driveway length to an unacceptable depth (under 20 feet), and allowed too great of desrgn/encroachzraent flexibility; Member Boerigter stated a non-traditionalhome could be designed to fit on the lot, that the existing home could have been relocated south when the initial lot split was supported allowing greated lot sizelflexibility, that the plight of land owner is due to the lot split and created by the owner, that the variance being sought is too great, and without any specific home design he could not support any variance; and member Bakeman stated that she concurred with the other members and that she may be able to support a less intrusive setback variance (see attached draft minutes). 6.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 6.1 The City Council has two options pertaining to the VARTANCE APPEAL, by Mr. T�i�'f: a. The Council can concur with the Variance Board's decision to deny, concluding that the variance does not meet all of the criteria required for granting of a variance and, thus ADOPT a RESOLUTION DENYING a 15 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements — front Yard Setback). This action will require findings of fact denying said request (see attached). PF'�F8 ] _R�,14_App��]_ ] �tJ�`iPa� � �� S