Laserfiche WebLink
2. A variance for a fence less than 50% open within neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot; <br />code requires 50%, applicant shows less than 50%, Section 1135.02(f)(1). <br />Roll call: Rudolph, Bellido, Lopez - yes; Sergi, I)iver - no; motion approved 3-2. <br />Variances granted. <br />Kurt GillberIZ; 6054 Burns Road: <br />Request for variance; proposal consists of a three season room and detached garage and the <br />following variances are requested: <br />1. A 10 foot rear yard variance for residence to close to rear property line (note #1); code <br />requires 50', applicant shows 40', Section 1135.05(a). <br />2. A 5 foot rear yard variance for a detached garage to close to rear property line; code requires <br />10', applicant shows 5', Section 1135.02(c)(2). <br />3. A 5 foot variance for a garage too close to residence (note #2); code requires 15', applicant <br />shows 10', Section 1135.02(c)(2). <br />4. A 40 square foot variance for exceeding rear yard coverage, Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />Notes: 1. Variance is to build a sunroom on existing dwelling. 2. Variance required for new <br />garage if sunrooin is approved, existing shed is to be removed if garage is granted. <br />Mr. Gillberg was sworn in and presented his request to construct a three season room which does <br />not include electricity or heating and cooling and would be used as a mud room and entry into <br />the hoine. In the future he would lilce to install a 24' x 24' garage which he wishes to place five <br />feet off the rear property line and noted that any garages found in the area are placed in the same <br />inanner as the lots are small. Due to the size of his lot a variance for distance between garage <br />and home is needed as well as for exceeding lot coverage which is unavoidable. The existing <br />shed will be demolished once the garage is completed. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the variances <br />required and the request of doing the worlc in phases, however no completion date has been <br />provided. The distance between the home and garage is not a safety issue but would require fire <br />rated walls. He noted that garages throughout the neighborhood were positioned in the same <br />manner and required to have downspouts tied into the existing storm lines. Mr. Lopez was <br />conceined that once a variance is granted for the room addition the space could later be <br />converted into a living space which is not warranted. Mr. Mitchell preferred that the garage be <br />reduced in size to eliminate exceeding lot coverage and noted that if variances are granted they <br />are only good for one year. Law Director Gareali advised the board to separate the two issues <br />during the motion. Mr. Gillberg said he would reduce the garage size to 22' x 24' to eliminate <br />the lot coverage variance and depending on how the garage is placed it could eliminate the <br />variance for distance from home as well. The majority of board members did not object to the <br />variances as amended due to the size of the lot, it would be in line with the surrounding <br />neighborhood and enhance property values. Garages are required for all lots however due to the <br />age of the neighborhood they were not talcen into consideration when the lots were drawn. A <br />brief discussion ensued pertaining to possible future outcomes and zoning laws which are in <br />place to ensure all cunent and future possibilities are governed. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by 1VIrs. Bellido to grant Kurt Gillberg of 6054 Burns Road <br />a 10 foot rear yard variance for residence too close to rear property line; code requires 50', <br />applicant shows 40', section 1135.05(a) which was approved 4-1, Mr. Lopez voted no.