CC PACKET 06221982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- remain as close as possible to the Ordinance requirements and, at the same time , replace his existing one car garage with another which will • accommodate both a full and -a compact size vehicle and will make his home more livable . The applicant said he had showed the plans for the project to the neighbors. on either side of him and neither had expressed opposition to his proposal . Mrs . Thompson added that an existing bath- room on the same side of the house as the garage prevented them from building the garage into the existing structure . It was noted by those present that there was a discrepancy between the 1956 survey of this property and the actual measurements taken in Mrs . Makowske ' s presence because the survey indicated there should only be 45 feet between the existing garage and the curbline on Belden where the measurement was 54 feet for the same distance. Mr. Sopcinski wondered whether, with the survey figures , the Thompsons might need more than a seven foot variance for the sixteen foot addition and Mr. Zawislak speculated that, if the survey is accurate, Belden might not have been centered correctly when it was built. He asked Mr. Thompson how he would react to losing between nine to 15 feet of front yard, if the City should decide to center Belden when that street is resurfaced. Mr. Bjorklund said he lives a block away on Roosevelt Street and has the only two-car garage on that .street. He perceives that, if any of- his neighbors should decide to .use the Thompson precedent to enlarge their own garages , these protrusions might ruin his view down the street and could diminish the value of his property . However , Mr. Bjorklund later conceded that in the case of Belden, the natural curvature of the street might prevent the proposed garage from inter- fering with the sightline for Mr. Thompson 's neighbors . Mr. Zawislak reported he had visited the site and a casual siting down the block had convinced him that the garage .addition, as proposed, would cause no visual problems for the Thompsons ' neighbors . Mr. Thompson responded by indicating he believes "each variance should stand on its own merits" . However, he indicated he would not be happy to lose from nine to 15 feet of front yard in the event Belden is relocated. The hearing was closed at 8 :20 P .M. Mr. Sopcinski and Mr. Peterson then attempted to write a motion of approval which would address the confusion over the actual measure- ments of the Thompson ' s front yard and the City ' s right-of-way - along Belden. They included the conclusion that the circumstances might be unique because "on a curvature of the nature of this one , the effect of a protruding addition is less detrimental to the adjacent property than on a straight street" . The meeting was recessed at 8 : 35 P .M. and when reconvened at 8 : 50 P.M. , Mr. Thompson indicated he agreed that it would be reasonable to have staff help him take accurate measurements using a stake to the rear of the property as a reference point , before the Commission makes a final decision related to a recommendation to the Council . • Mr. Sopcinski , with concurrence of the second, withdrew his motion and moved to table the request instead.