2014_07_09_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 2 meet neighborhood characteristics, and essentially add only an additional 80 square feet to the 46 structure. While applauding staff for making the recommendation in the spirit of City Code, Chair 47 Boguszewski asked for staff’s rationale in the proposed square footage at 816; and stated that his 48 reaction was to approve the variance but strike the condition limiting the square footage as 49 recommended by staff, but allowing for the full 896 square feet. 50 Chair Boguszewski sought staff’s perspective on this. 51 Mr. Lloyd advised that he agreed with many of the points raised by Chair Boguszewski regarding 52 the square footage; and stated that staff’s recommendation to limit the square footage to 100% of 53 the principle structure was recognizing the likely intent and remaining true to that City Code 54 provision. Mr. Lloyd concurred that any size over 85% of the principle structure became arbitrary; 55 and opined that increasing the variance-approved size as suggested was the Variance Board’s 56 prerogative. 57 City Planner Paschke concurred; however, he cautioned that the Planning Commission should 58 consider whether or not this may create a precedent with other requests to follow. If each 59 approval was granted or denied on its own merits, Mr. Paschke opined that this may not be a 60 problem or become a huge issue; however, staff’s recommendation to keep the square footage at 61 100% of the principle structure was staff’s rationale in addressing potential issues in the future 62 with similar requests. 63 Chair Boguszewski noted that the applicant would still need to achieve 3 or 5 other design 64 elements, which should provide sufficient protection concerning precedents. 65 Member Murphy questioned the intent of the condition requiring the driveway to be paved within 66 one year of issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the new garage; and whether that was due to 67 its considerable length. Also, Member Murphy opined that requiring the driveway to be paved 68 seemed contrary to current preferences for pervious versus impervious surfaces. 69 Mr. Lloyd stated that he was unsure of the intent or context for the condition, but opined it may be 70 related to environmental or building code issues versus zoning code issues. 71 Mr. Paschke opined that, within the metropolitan area, it was hard to find gravel driveways, based 72 on maintenance of private properties, as well as storm water management issues. Mr. Paschke 73 confirmed that it is a current code requirement for paved or concrete driveways; and staff could 74 not grant a variance to other sections of code for driveways on residential property. 75 Chair Boguszewski noted several homes further to the north in this same stretch of homes with 76 partially paved driveways similar to this property; and noted they didn’t meet code requirements 77 either. 78 Mr. Paschke suggested that they may be pre-existing and not have been triggered by an 79 improvement. Mr. Paschke noted that there were several similar situations throughout the 80 community, and any of them would also be triggered by an improvement, requiring them to meet 81 current code requirements at that time. 82 Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was recourse for the City if the applicant or property owner 83 was found non-compliance in meeting the driveway paving requirement within the allowed year. 84 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, advising that such verification and recourse would be taken 85 through the City’s code enforcement arm, through a legal process handled with the City Attorney. 86 Chair Boguszewski suggested that, at the end of that time, the applicant could make an additional 87 case for appeal or seek additional time. 88 Applicant Michael Ahmann, 2926 Old Highway 8 89 Mr. Ahmann thanked staff and the Variance Board for their time and consideration of his request. 90 Mr. Ahmann provided his written narrative (Attachment C) dated June 3, 2014; and verbally 91 expounded on those comments at this time. 92 Regarding the driveway, Mr. Ahmann noted that the new garage would move forward 93 approximately 10’ from the existing garage; and the distance from the blacktop apron to the 94 garage door, would be approximately 153’ total length at 12’ width for 140’ until widening out to 95