2012_05_02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 3 Applicant, Josh Kath, 3079 Sandy Hook Drive 91 Mr. Kath offered additional background on how he and his wife had ended up seeking this 92 variance request. Mr. Kath’s written narrative was included with the staff report (Attachment 93 C). Mr. Kath reviewed rationale for needed boat storage; demolition of the existing boat house 94 that was in significant disrepair; space needed to facilitate his woodworking hobby; and 95 storage for two family vehicles; as well as a utility trailer. Mr. Kath advised that 96 accommodating those various needs, and with removal of the existing boat house and storage 97 capabilities there, the requested square footage severely limited their moving forward without 98 the variance. Mr. Kath advised that they had reduced the height and attempted to meet the 99 square footage requirements; however, this was as close as they could facilitate. Mr. Kath 100 advised that they had taken into consideration the adjacent properties; and shared access to 101 the lake; as well as reducing some of the impervious surface approaching the house. 102 Member Boguszewski noted that the applicant was obviously making do with their existing 103 1,043 square feet, and questioned if the increased square footage was for the purpose of 104 allowing increased functionality. Member Boguszewski questioned what the applicant would 105 gain in functionality with the requested space versus today’s total square footage. 106 Mr. Kath noted that the increased square footage would allow relocation and storage of the 107 boat and utility trailer, since woodworking shop equipment would be fairly mobile. Mr. Kath 108 noted that, with the loss of the existing boat house where the boat sat on a cradle and there 109 was no need for a trailer, there would now be the need for a trailer to transport the boat into 110 the new storage area. Mr. Kath advised that he would need to remove the trailer from the 111 proposed structure when he performed his woodworking shop activities. 112 Member Boguszewski reviewed the first and second levels of the new structure and 113 configuration options for accommodating the needs of the applicant. Member Boguszewski 114 opined that, while he was naturally inclined to allow a property owner the full use of their 115 property as long as they were not harming others, he questioned whether the actual square 116 footage was actually necessary or whether Mr. Kath could accomplish what was needed 117 within the square footage requirements of City Code. Member Boguszewski advised that he 118 concurred with the accuracy of staff’s analysis that there were no practical difficulties 119 identified. 120 Mr. Kath advised that he had taken into consideration numerous options; however, the 121 problem remained with the utility trailer, already needing to be tucked under the stairway 122 space in his plans; as well as the additional storage needed for those stationary items that 123 could not be stored or moved to the second level and requiring the additional square footage 124 on the first level. While he may be able to move some things upstairs, Mr. Kath advised that it 125 would require a much heavier duty weight load. 126 Member Strohmeier questioned the height difference and whether the peak of the roof would 127 obstruct the view for adjacent properties of Lake Owasso if the variance was approved. 128 Mr. Kath advised that he had considered the option for a higher structure, as well as whether a 129 detached or attached structure on the north side of the existing home. However, Mr. Kath 130 advised that their main structure located on the point was set far ahead of the adjacent 131 structures in their side view, and opined that the location of the proposed structure would not 132 impact the side views of adjacent property owners. 133 Mr. Lloyd advised that the original plans submitted by Mr. Kath called for a taller, detached 134 building, taller than allowed by Code for the roof’s mid-point maximum of fifteen feet (15’); and 135 noted that the applicant had changed their plans accordingly to meet that portion of the Code. 136 Member Strohmeier opined that he had yet to hear a convincing argument for the Variance 137 Board to approve the requested 37 square foot variance. 138 Member Boguszewski noted that, by reducing the square footage by a mere 18.5 inches, it 139 would bring the structure into compliance at 1,043 square feet. 140