PL MINUTES 06151982 - 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 andwill make his home more .livable . . The applicant said -he had . showed the plans for the project to the neighbbrs 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 ,hous.e 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-. thengarage-:addition; as proposed, would cause no visual problems for the -Thompsons ' neighbors . Mr. Thompsonresponded by indicating he believes "each variance should stand on its own merits However,, he indicated hewouldnot 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 o.f ' this one , the effect of a protruding addition is less 'detrimen.tal 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.