2012_05_02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Board could take action tonight with their recommended changes; 192 and reference their findings for approval based on City Code and State Statute as detailed in 193 Section 5.1 of the staff report; and direct staff to revise the resolution approving the variance 194 request. Mr. Lloyd noted the findings would also need to delineate the practical difficulties 195 addressed in Section 5.2 of the staff report if the Variance Board chose to approve the 196 variance request; at which time staff would incorporate those findings in the resolution, which 197 would be ultimately signed by the City Manager, not requiring subsequent Variance Board 198 action. 199 Member Boguszewski questioned if there were any practical difficulties that could be defined 200 as findings. 201 Chair Gisselquist concurred; however, opined that he would like to grant the variance request, 202 otherwise he questioned why the Variance Board even existed. 203 Member Boguszewski opined that the Variance Board should be able to use its discretion and 204 based their decisions on a case by case basis; even thought there may not be documentable 205 practical difficulty findings. Member Boguszewski opined that the Board’s rationale should be 206 based on the underlying basis of finding the overall city-wide square footage formula may not 207 be applicable to all properties across the board. Member Boguszewski opined that, in this 208 case, the Board had found that the applicant had done due diligence in attempting to confine 209 the square footage to that he required while addressing other considerations for his property 210 and that of his adjacent neighbors and keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 211 Chair Gisselquist condoned Member Strohmeier’s additional questions of the applicant of his 212 interpretation of the practical difficulty in his ability to comply with City Code. 213 Mr. Kath responded that the existing boat garage and its location directly on the water’s edge 214 allowed easier access for the boat and items used on the lake. However, with removal of that 215 deteriorating structure and less than desirable conditions to rebuild at that location based on 216 shoreline deviations and movements and problems with the foundations holding, Mr. Kath 217 noted the amount of storage lost with its demolition and the need to accommodate that 218 storage in the proposed new structure. While having considered numerous configurations in 219 planning the structure, Mr. Kath opined that the way the existing house was positioned created 220 more negative impacts to surrounding residential parcels, leading them to present the 221 proposed plans. Mr. Kath opined that their desire to store everything within one structure was 222 their practical application. 223 Member Strohmeier opined that he supported the concept of moving the structure away from 224 the environment and lake; however, he questioned whether everything but the trailer could be 225 accommodated within the existing 1,043 square feet. 226 Mr. Kath advised that the utility trailer was currently stored outside on the property, and this 227 proposed plan would move it inside. 228 Member Boguszewski concurred with Mr. Kath, that the trailer, needing to be stored 229 perpendicular if the eighteen inches (18’) were lost, was the practical difficulty. However, 230 Member Boguszewski cautioned that the Variance Board should not set a precedent for future 231 requests suggesting that variances would be granted if they only exceeded the Code by a few 232 inches. Member Boguszewski noted that the existing Code was there for a reason; however, 233 he had a problem with the underlying formula in reaching those calculations. Member 234 Boguszewski advised that he was still leaning toward granting approval of the variance 235 request; while still acknowledging the accuracy of staff’s interpretation of City Code; but 236 granting the request based on the discretion of the Variance Board. 237 Member Boguszewski asked whether a motion would be appropriate to not approve the 238 recommended denial of the variance request and to direct Staff to draft a new resolution 239 approving the application. 240