Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Variance Board Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Minutes - Wednesday, November 05, 2008 <br />1. Call to Order <br />1 <br />Chair Daniel Boerigter called to order the Variance Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. and reviewed the <br />2 <br />role and purpose of the Variance Board. <br />3 <br />2. Roll Call & Introductions <br />4 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br />5 <br />Members Present: Chair Daniel Boerigter and Commissioner Jim Doherty. <br />6 <br />Members Excused: Commissioner Andre Best. <br />7 <br />Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke and Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd. <br />8 <br />3. Review of Minutes <br />9 <br />MOTION <br />10 <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to approve meeting minutes of <br />11 <br />October 01, 2008 as presented. <br />12 <br />Ayes: 2 <br />13 <br />Nays: 0 <br />14 <br />Motion carried. <br />15 <br />4. Public Hearings <br />16 <br />a. PLANNING FILE 08-042: Request by David Redish, 1990 Dellwood Avenue, for <br />17 <br />VARIANCES to City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts) to allow the <br />18 <br />construction of a residential addition that would encroach further into the required <br />19 <br />front yard setback and increase the excess impervious coverage. <br />20 <br />Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 08-042. <br />21 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request to allow <br />22 <br />construction of a sunroom that would encroach eleven feet (11’) farther into the required <br />23 <br />setback from a front property line. Mr. Lloyd noted that the VARIANCE was also being <br />24 <br />sought to the impervious coverage limit established in the same section of Code, since <br />25 <br />the proposed sunroom would increase the excess impervious coverage by an additional <br />26 <br />154 square feet. Mr. Lloyd advised that, if the lot met minimum square footage, there <br />27 <br />would most likely be no need for any special approvals. <br />28 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposed sunroom would encroach an additional eleven feet <br />29 <br />(11’), standing thirteen feet (13’) from the front property line; and noted that the property <br />30 <br />setback was already legally nonconforming with a setback of twenty-four feet (24’). Mr. <br />31 <br />Lloyd noted that a small deck is currently attached to the home at the location of the <br />32 <br />proposed sunroom. <br />33 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that staff concerns, as well as concerns expressed by neighbors, were <br />34 <br />that with the addition on the upper level of a split entry home, the posts supporting the <br />35 <br />western side would not be aesthetically preferred on the front of the home. Mr. Lloyd <br />36 <br />noted that, if the variance was approved, staff would recommend a condition of approval <br />37 <br />(Condition B as detailed in the staff report) that an exterior treatment, coupled with <br />38 <br />landscaping be used to camouflage those posts. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff would <br />39 <br />continue to work with the applicant through the process to meet those goals. <br />40 <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the requested VARIANCES, based on the comments <br />41 <br />and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated <br />42 <br />November 5, 2008. <br />43 <br />Discussion included the number of neighborhood comments, with staff confirming that <br />44 <br />only one (1) phone call had been received by staff as previously addressed; staff’s <br />45 <br /> <br />