233

Mr. Endsley stated that he is in favor of granting the application because the Board frequently deals with similar variance requests. He believes that the addition will significantly enhance the home. Additionally, he does not have concerns about access to the backyard, as the City’s Public Safety Department and Public Works Department have no concerns about the delivery of governmental services.

Ms. Yankel noted that access to the rear yard still concerns her, and asked if a condition could be added to protect access from the west side of the home. The other board members agreed tha

Therefore, it was moved by Mr. O’Connor and seconded by Ms. Yankel that the staff findings be adopted and application #25-1, a request by Tim and Mary Hauser for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement in conjunction with the construction of a residential addition at 67 Wisteria Drive, be approved with the following conditions:

  1. The driveway must be retained from the street to the rear building line (addition) in order to satisfy off-street parking requirements;
  2. All work shall be properly permitted as required by law; and
  3. No landscaping or accessory structures on west side of home that would prevent reasonable maintenance/service access to rear yard.

Upon viva voce vote, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0.

The adopted staff findings of fact are as follows:

VARIANCE FACTORS

A.
Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS:
The property can yield a reasonable return with or without the variance.
B.
Whether the variance is substantial;
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS:
Staff considers this to be a minor variance, adjusting the existing setback of 31’ to 26’. While this variance would place the home a little closer to the rear lot line, it would eliminate the existing garage and create additional green space to buffer the Applicants’ property from their neighbors.
C.
Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS:
Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood, which is primarily single family residential, would not be adversely affected by this variance. The addition will be designed and constructed so as to complement the existing home and neighborhood. The purpose of the addition is to create additional living space for the Applicants’ family and does not change the use of the property. The proposed setback has existing precedent in the neighborhood already, as the property at 43 Wisteria Drive has a rear yard setback of 24’.
D.
Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (i.e.