PL MINUTES 07201982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- In response to Mr. Berg's recommendation that the Commission address • the non-conformance of" the existing swimming pool , . the Chairman offered the following friendly amendment which was accepted by both the maker and the second: The Commission also believes the City - ordinance requirement that- there must be at least ten feet between a swimming pool and a major structure should be waived in this case because the garage is not the major structure on the Parkins property and the topography- of the site would appear to eliminate any possibility of damage from leakage . Voting on theamended motion: Ayer Bowerman, Peterson, and Zawislak. Nay: Bjorklund and Makowske. Abstention : Jones . Motion carried. The Chairman then reopened the public hearing which had been tabled during the June 15th Commission meeting so accurate measurements could be taken .of the front yard setbacks for Orville Thompson ' s property at 3302 Belden Drive. In his July 13th memorandum, Mr. Berg confirmed that the existing garage on the Thompson property is 39 feet from the front lot line and with a. 16 foot garage addition will require • only a seven foot. front yard setback variance to the City Zoning Ordinance as requested. Mr. Berg confirmed that Mr. Thompson's neighbor' s home on the corner of Belden is set five feet forward from the existing structure on the . Thompson property and the impact of the garage addi- tion on the home at 3304 'Belden can be expected to be lessened by the curvature of. Belden at that- point. Only Mr. Thompson was present and he did not speak.. The hearing was closed at 9 : 30 P.M. Motion by Mr. Zawislak. and seconded by Mrs . Makowske to recommend Council approval. of the seven foot variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requirement that front yards have setbacks of 30 feet, which would permit the construction of a garage addition proposed by Orville Thompson which would be 23 feet from the property line of Lot 13 , Block 1, Belden Terrace Second Addition, finding that: (.1). On a curvature--of the nature of this street, the effect of a pro- truding addition is less detrimental to- the adjacent property than on a .straight street. (2) The .addition would not appear to have an- adverse impact on their properties or interfere with the sightline for Mr. Thompson 's neighbors. (3) No neighbor opposition to the variance was demonstrated during any of the hearings on the proposal. • Motion carried unanimously.