2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SEPTEMBER 6,2006 DRAFT MINUTES VARIANCEBOARD PLANNING FILE 3655 �2equest by Todd Iliff for a VARIANCE to Rvseville City Code, �10€14.�1G (Residential idimensional Requirements) to allow a principal st��uct,�:e encroachment into tl�e required iF'ront yard setbacic adj acent to Dale Couxi. Chair�iake�an opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3655. City Planner Thomas Paschlce reviewed the request of Charles �XieieczJsz, owner of a vacanf �arcel at Dale Court and Dale Street, currently zoned R-'�, Single-Family residential, and the Comprehensive Plan identified iit the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density ResidentiaL Mr. Paschlce noted that the vacant lot was split off from a larger parcel in August of 2005, which� minor subdivision discussed the rationale for supporting thc land division without any further �ariances; Planning Colni�ission and City Council both supported the proposed hiangular Minor Subdivision. Mr. Paschlce advised that, since the creation of the parcel, the applicant bad been� unsuccessful in selling it due to the inability of siY �9potential buyers to design a home andi attached garage in a manner achieving required setbacics. Upon review of the lot and i�� buildable area, the applicant concludes that the allowance of an encroachment into the frortt yard for an attached garage or living arca would afford a buyer greater design �lc�i�iiity o n the uniquelyshaped parcel. LStaff recommended approval of the request, by resolution, due to unique and extenuaiing i circumstances, to allow a fut�rc hnxn�/atrached garage encroachment of up to fifteen feel: (15') into the required front yard setbacic for the vacant parcel at Dale Court and Dale Str�et based on the com�nents and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of �c project report dated September 6,2006. Applicant's Representative: Todd I[iff, son-in-law of property owners, Charles andl Suzanne �Ve�ecs�i. Mr. lliff noted his relationship to the applicant, and his role in assisting them with th� variance request and process. Mr. Iliff reviewed his narrative description of the propez-ty dated July 13, 2006, attached to the staff report dated September 6, 2006. In the narrative, Mr. Iliff reviewed the practical difficulties of the lot in accommodating typical andlor standard k�ozne design plans; reviewed a schematic of a possible footprint for a single-famil) home for the new lot; and the design's consistency with neighboring properties and sight lines. Discussion setbacics of adja�rzi��g properties at thia-�� feet (30') from the property lines; easement and utility locations; and staffs interpretation of the variance allowing for the� encroachment of the principal structure or garage to provide more flexibility and to malce th� design more functional and aesthetically plcasz��g and so the garage didn't become a sole design feature with greatervisibilitythan the main structure.