11/04/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

yard easement plus the addition leaves only 35 feet which will affect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Lajlco said there was plenty of space in the backyard which has a board on board fence and is 64 feet from the baclc of the existing home. Mrs. Diver aslced the number of bedrooms and Ms. Lajlco said there were three bedrooms. Ms. Rudolph aslced if thought was given to decreasing the depth and widening it across the back of the home. Ms Lajlco said to go across the back of the home would eliminate the lcitchen and other room windows malcing the rooms very darlc. Mrs. Diver aslced if the shed would remain and Ms. Lajko said yes. Mr. Lopez said the owners should reconsider the design of the addition to decrease or eliminate the need for a variance. The lot coverage is substantial and the addition would alter the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Diver suggested having the addition 24 feet wide and 14 feet deep and installing skylights in the rooms which would lose their windows. She noted that if the variance is granted although this owner may not want to go across the baclc of the home a firture owner may and a variance now would allow further expansion. Although Ms. Rudolph understands other board members concerns she is sympathetic to the owner who has stated they do not want to eliminate windows along the rear of the home. The request is less than ten feet and there is additional space on the back side of the addition. Mrs. Sergi is concerned with the size of the back yard and the addition decreasing the size further. The addition and shed places lot coverage at 20% making it impossible to do anything further such as having a patio, deck or pool. The addition could be designed in such a way that could meet code. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to grant Julie Lajko of 3974 Winton Park Drive a 9.3 foot rear yard variance for a residence too close to the rear property line; code requires 50 ft, applicant shows 40.7 ft, section 1135.08(a). Roll call: Sergi, Diver, Lopez - no; lZudolph, Bellido - yes; eariance denied 2-3. Board members reviewed the seven standards. The majority felt the variance was substantial and could be eliminated by redesigning the addition. The addition would limit the use of the backyard and would alter the character of the neighborhood. The predicament can be precluded without a variance and the intent of the zoning code would not Ue upheld. COMMUNICATION Ms. Rudolph said she wanted to bring Ordinance 2010-126 to the board's attention pertaining to the city planner being able to grant a time extension to commercial developments expired order. Mr. Gareau said the planner felt that the issue of addressing developments which year is about to expire should be addressed in the codified ordinances. He requested section 1123.15 "Expiration order" be addressed as the board's decision is final however the way city codes are written both approvals and denials expire after one year from the date of being granted or denied. If a variance is granted it runs with the lot therefore it should never have to return before the board to be readdressed just because a year has passed. Furthennore once a variance is denied it should not be allowed to return a year later to be requested again; however it can. In discussions it was determined that at the end of the year if nothing had changed then it would not malce sense that a time extension could not be denied. Mrs. Diver aslced why the board wasn't aslced to review the ordinance and give their opinion on the matter. Mr. Gareau said they are working on wording to ensure that nothing is changed from the original approval or new zoning laws or property maintenance issues pending. Mr. Lopez said he does not believe that there should be a time frame nor should any one administrative person be given the power to grant or deny a time 2