2012_05_02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 4 Further discussion ensued among Mr. Kath, staff and Commissioners related to the 141 problematic utility trailer tongue and configuration of the structure to facilitate the trailer; staff’s 142 rational in not approving this variance as an administrative deviation based on the typical 143 administrative deviation process typically dealing with setbacks and height requirements as 144 specifically defined for staff’s approval, but not including a square footage deviation for 145 consideration at a staff level. 146 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m., with no one appearing 147 for or against. 148 Commission Deliberation 149 Member Boguszewski advised that he was of two minds, opining that as previously stated, 150 he believed that staff correctly applied and interpreted City Code in providing their 151 assessment. However, Member Boguszewski questioned the purpose of the Variance Board 152 as the place to appeal this type of application or if the robotic standards needed to apply 153 across the board without any deviation, or whether there was some latitude on a case by case 154 basis. Member Boguszewski opined that it came down to how the square footage limits were 155 set and calculated; and whether having a standard limit for every type and property size was 156 appropriate, or whether a new formula was needed based on the scale of properties and 157 immediate neighborhood. Member Boguszewski suggested that, since the current formula had 158 served the City for a long time, it may be time to reconsider it. Member Boguszewski noted 159 that if the Variance Board voted to approve the variance request, it was acknowledging that 160 current City Code contains an underlying problem in how the current formula for 1,008 square 161 feet was determined; nullifying existing law and saying staff was wrong in their analysis. From 162 his personal perspective, Member Boguszewski opined that the current formula may need to 163 be updated. 164 Chair Gisselquist concurred with the findings of Member Boguszewski; opining that he would 165 have supported staff approving the variance through an administrative deviation. Chair 166 Gisselquist opined that, while the 1,008 square foot may work for an average property or 167 future scaling of an accessory structure based on the size of the main structure; he recognized 168 the work of the applicant and staff in attempting to find a solution other than the requested 169 variance. At this point, Chair Gisselquist opined that he was in favor of approving the variance 170 allowing the Variance Board to exercise their discretion for the additional thirty-seven (37) 171 square feet. 172 Member Strohmeier commended staff on their report and detail of their analysis for this case. 173 However, Member Strohmeier noted that he was of two minds on this request as well. While 174 supporting the reduced impervious surface on the lot with this plan, an important 175 environmental improvement from his perspective, Member Strohmeier noted his past 176 comments at Variance Board meetings about having huge structures on fairly small lots and 177 setting bad precedents with increased impervious surface from those structures. Member 178 Strohmeier noted that his concerns at that time had been specific to the United Properties plan 179 and staff’s approval of those plans. However, Member Strohmeier noted that this request was 180 significantly smaller and the area smaller as well; however, he had yet to hear any compelling 181 reason for the additional square footage; and sought additional comment from other members 182 of the Variance Board prior to a decision. Member Strohmeier advised that, at this point, he 183 was leaning toward approval of the variance request, since he didn’t see that the minimal 184 amount of the variance would significantly harm the environment or surrounding adjacent 185 area, opining that the lot seemed large enough to accommodate the proposed structure. 186 Chair Gisselquist advised that he also appreciated the attempt to reduce impervious surface. 187 From a procedural standpoint, Chair Gisselquist asked staff the appropriate wording of a 188 motion approving rather than denying the variance request, noting that staff had provided a 189 DRAFT resolution denying the resolution. Chair Gisselquist questioned if the Board should 190 take action tonight, or defer a decision until staff drafted another resolution for future action. 191