2003-061 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 2 EXHIBIT #� Staff recommended this be continued to the June meeting. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review to the June, 2003 meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. A. REBECCA KELEER. 6206 RED MAPLE LANE, VARIANCE Staff stated Ms. Keller would hike to enlarge her existing garage on the south side, as well as add a home addition above the garage and a mud room on the east side. Applicant had stated that it was necessary to encroach into the setback area in order to make the proposed addition of a size large enough to make the project worthwhile. It was staffs contention that the desire to expand simply in order to have more storage space does not constitute a demonstration of hardship. Further, by making some design changes and expanding to the.east, rather than the south, the applicant has the ability to fulfill their desire for expansion while working within the requirements of the ordinance. Staff presented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62nd Street. Mr. Tralle asked when the street was proposed to go in. Mr. Grochala replied they hoped to start it this year. Mr. Lyden asked if the proposed road went through a green space. Ms. Gretz replied she did not know about the green space, but there was a lot of wetland in the area. Mr. Lyden asked if this was in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grochala replied it was in the transportation plan, which was an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden asked what the plausibility of extending the road to Holly Drive. Mr. Grochala replied there were challenges to constructing the road. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Rebecca Keller, 6206 Red Maple Lane, stated she has been in her home since 1986 and when they purchased their property, the setback requirement was 30 feet and at that time, 62"1 Street was not defined as a collector street, and if were defined as a collector street at that time, it would have had a 401 foot setback. She estimated it was changed to a collector street five or six years ago. She stated the reasonable use of her property was a very subjective thing. Usable use for her was a three -car garage. She stated her circumstances were unique in that they lived on a comer lot and they did not have access to 62"'d Street. She noted if they were to build a garage farther to the east, they would not have very good accessibility to the garage. She indicated they would have to go all of the way through their property to get to the garage. She stated other design choices would be more costly and would not provide them the economic and aesthetic value they wanted. She stated they would not be getting special privileges by asking for this because if they built five or six years ago, they would have requested a smaller variance. She stated the intent of the ordinance should not prevent the owners from making practical design choices. DRAFT MINUTES