01/12/2005 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES existing detached accessory structure (garage) setback 1.2 feet from the side property line. The resident was informed that the stru cture would either need to be made to meet the 5.0 feet setback, and if it were to remain in any way, the resident would need to obtain a building permit. He stated the City’s Building Department again contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road on September 17, 2004 to reiterate the optio ns for the detached accessory structure (garage). He noted on November 24, 2004, the Community Development Department received an application for this Variance request to allo w a 1.2 foot side setback for a detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 is the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. Staff presented their analysis and recommende d denial of the variance based on the five findings of fact outlined in staff’s Janu ary 12, 2005 report. Staff also recommended within 30 days of the City Council’s final act ion, the property owner is required to apply for a building permit for any portion of the un-pe rmitted structure that is to remain. This permit application will need to include a su rvey of the subject property along with any documentation required by the Building Department . Staff stated any portion of the un- permitted structure that is to remain must co mply with all building code requirements and within 90 days of the City Council’s final action, the un-permitted structure must be brought into conformance with the setback requirements. Mr. Tralle asked if the original structure, without the addition, was in compliance with the five foot setback. Mr. Bengtson replie d the original structure was approved by the City and a Building Permit had been issued. Applicant was not in attendance. Julianne Markiewicz, attorney for Sally Bachmeier, adjacent property owner. Stated the original structure was actually 8 inches within the five foot setback, so it did violate the setback. She noted her client concurred with staff’s comm ents. She pointed out there had been a cement slab over the property line and Mr. Muehlstedt cut the cement slab so it was now flush with the property line. She re quested that cement slab be removed. She stated her client was forced to build a fen ce on the property line for privacy. She stated the discussion in staff’s memo accurately states all of the factors necessary for a variance and they concurred with those findings and they would ask that the variance be denied. She asked if they could add a condition that an inspection be done and another condition removing the cement slab. Mr. Pogalz asked if this was something that s hould be handled by the C ourt, or is this due process. Chair Rafferty responded they had to handle the variance issue. Mr. Tralle asked who took the photographs in their packet. Mr. Bengtson replied the photographs had been submitted by the applicant. Ms. Markiewicz presented photographs to the Board taken by Ms. Bachmeier.