CC PACKET 05221990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 3 1 Barbara Zielinska reiterated the reasons she had given the Commission 2 during her April 17th testimony for wanting more garage space to park at 3 least two of the four vehicles her family drives off the driveway. She 4 indicated she had hoped that by turning the garages around to face each 5 other and eliminating three feet from the variance she would make her 6 proposal more acceptable to the City. The applicant said she saw no 7 other solution to her parking problems during the winter months when 8 parking on the street is prohibited. She . also reported her proposal 9 would eliminate the hills in front of the double bungalow which she 10 perceived were of no value to anyone and made mowing very difficult. 11 Ms. Zielinska told the Commissioners there had been no opposition to her 12 proposal from the neighbors and it was hard for her to understand why 13 she couldn't do anything she wanted with her own property, especially 14 when it wouldn't hurt anyone else. She asked if any of them had any 15 other solution to her problem. 16 When Commissioner Hansen asked the applicant why she had failed to 17 respond to the first condition on the new Petition for Variance, Ms. 18 Zielinska indicated she had not known how to answer the question that 19 condition posed. Mr. Burt reported he had met with the applicants and 20 tried to explain what zoning meant relative . to their property. 21 The hearing was closed at 8: 32 P.M. for Commission consideration of a 22 recommendation. 23 Commissioner Werenicz said he hadn't seen anything new in the proposal 24 which would solve the concerns the Commission had expressed during the 25 April 17th hearing. He indicated he didn't believe either proposal 26 could meet the conditions imposed on approval of this type of variance. 27 He would therefore oppose recommending approval for those reasons. 28 Chair Madden and Commissioner Wagner concurred with his conclusions with 29 the latter adding that finding out the dimensions of the right-of-way in 30 front of this property had only deepened his original convictions. 31 Commission Recommendation 32 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Faust to recommend the City Council deny 33 the request for a variance from the 35 foot front yard setbacks 34 maintained by adjacent properties for two double garages in front of the 35 double bungalow at 2608/10 - 37th Avenue N.E. , finding that: 36 1. The three questions required to be answered in the affirmative in 37 the Petition for Variance had not been done so with the new 38 proposal. 39 2 . The safety factors and potential problems with the sewer line with 40 the proposed construction justified denial. 41 3 . Precedents for granting similar requests have not been established.