11/03/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The board discussed separating the requested use variance from the design and placement details of the structure, emphasizing that the immediate decision was whether to allow the use itself, not how it was constructed or located. It was noted that if the use variance were approved, the remaining area variances could be tabled and potentially revised after further review with the Building Department. Members acknowledged concerns about precedent but reiterated that each case is reviewed on its own merits and does not establish precedent. The consensus was that the board should first vote on the use variance, as the other variance requests depended on that determination and lacked sufficient finalized information for review at that time. Motion Passed: 4-0 After the board approved the use variance to allow a catio on the property, it discussed how to proceed with the remaining area variances. Members explained that the board could either vote on the remaining variances as presented or table them to allow the applicant to submit revised, more detailed plans. It was noted that the current materials were not to scale and did not provide enough clarity to evaluate compliance with code requirements. The board chose to table the remaining variances so the applicant could work with the Building Department to prepare detailed plans showing how the structure would conform, or substantially conform, to the zoning code before returning to a future meeting for further consideration. Mr. Mackey made a motion to table the second and third variance requests; seconded by Ms. Galateanu. Motion Passed: 4-0 341-2025; Dawn & Jennifer Goins; 28456 Alden Dr. The board heard Case 341-2025 regarding a request for front and rear yard setback variances to construct a new single-family home on a vacant lot at 28456 Alden Drive, where the previous home had been destroyed by fire. Staff explained the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback variance and a 5 -foot, 6 -inch rear yard setback variance due to the irregular shape of the parcel. The applicant and builder stated the design was intended to allow single -floor living, preserve existing driveway access, limit curb cuts, and reduce grading impacts while retaining mature trees. Several neighboring residents spoke in opposition, citing concerns about the home's width, reduced open space, neighborhood character, proximity to adjacent homes, and potential impacts on property values. City staff clarified that the side yard setbacks complied with code and that the property was considered a single, buildable parcel. Board members discussed the unusual lot configuration, 2