11/14/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 4 Ms. Lane asked if the shed were removed, what size structure would Mr. Poser be allowed to have. Ms. Gretz replied he could build a 460 square foot building. Mr. Hyden asked about the driveway access off of 62nd. He asked if this would be a problem. Mr. Powell replied the driveway construction would go over an easement and they would need to receive permission to go over the easement, but this was not unusual and this was done all of the time. Mr. Corson asked if there was any problem with having two driveways. Mr. Powell replied the Ordinances did not prohibit it, but he strongly advised against it. Ms. Lane stated she was in agreement with Mr. Zych for allowing this variance, but only if the smaller shed would be removed. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to allow the variance on the condition that the small accessory building of 160 feet be removed, and the driveway be moved 20 feet further east, and was supported by Mr. Zych. After further discussion, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and Mr. Zych withdrew his second. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the variance to allow an accessory building in excess of maximum number allowed, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the new garage, contingent with the driveway being placed in compliance 20 feet east and the present accessory building be removed, for the reason that Mr. Poser was extremely close in meeting the Ordinance, and he had the permission of the adjoining landowners, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Mr. Corson stated staff might want to change this Ordinance. Chair Schaps clarified that what they were allowing was one accessory building and the shed would need to be removed. Motion carried (4 -1 Corson). B. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the required 5 -foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in order to construct a 465 square foot addition on to his existing 624 square foot attached garage. The proposed addition would be used primarily to house a third car, and secondarily for storage. In addition, applicant argued that several homes in the neighborhood had three -stall garages, and that such an addition would add value and marketability to the subject property. • Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant wanted to build a 31' X 15' addition onto his existing attached garage. The current garage was located in the northeast corner of the lot, 15 feet from the northern property line. Staff stated a water well was located in