2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�. � The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: This particular neighborhood has beei�. improved over a��umber of years. Recent homes were cons�ructed'zzi the late 1990's � early 2000's, while others date backto the 1950's. This would explain some of the variation in front yard and side yard setbacks, hut does not necessarily support 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 VARTAIVCE will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacentproperties. 5,� STAFF/V'ARiAT�TCE BOARD RECOMMENDATION: �_ I At the public hearing on September 6,2006, the City Planner recommendedapproval of the requested V�R.IANCE based on the findings cf Section 4.3 to 4.5 as indicated above and subjectto the followingconditions: a. The ei�c�oaclunent being limited to 15 feet from the front properly line adj acent to Dale Court. b. The design of any ��o�elattac�c;d garage must minimizethe impact of the encroachment — be designed in such a manner that the �vzxae/a��ed garage are positionedangular (not 90%) to Dale Court. c. The ho�e�atEacl�ed garage design must be reviewed and approved by the DevelopmentReview Coz�ni�t�e. d. The variance (if granted) shall expire within 1 year of its approvalif a building permit is not issued pursuant to $1013.03 of the City Code. �. r'. On September 6,2006 the Variance Board held the public hearing r�garding the We�ec��Cii�llif request. At the meeting two adj acentproperty owners spolce in opposition to the requestand Variance Board r�er�7bers asked questions of staff and the applicant. �:i Specifically, oz�e adjacent resident was �usi�ated that the postcard indicated the report would be avazlable �'�day, September 1, but that he could not o�tain the report off the web page —asked tha�: the zec�ucst be postponed until he received more details about request. He added that a concern was over s�tc lines and vehicles parked on site and tllous traveling on �a�c Court creating a safety hazard. He also asked whetherthe public �ras�wotal be invitedto the Design Review Committee meetingwhere the home plan would be reviewed and potentially approved. �.� Another adjacent resident stated that the requestis a direct result of the minor subdivision of 2005 and that a variance should not be supported. �� i �h � � �� _ r��7M�..��r.��7�4Ff! � {-F �