2016-03-02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 4 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed the applicant’s request as detailed in the 148 staff report and related attachments dated March 2, 2016. Mr. Lloyd noted that, as a 149 result of staff’s analysis and two findings memorialized in the draft ordinance, staff 150 recommended denial of the request. 151 In addition to the email included in the meeting materials, Mr. Lloyd advised that one 152 additional email had been received to-date by staff from a nearby resident and after 153 preparation and dissemination of the meeting packet. Mr. Lloyd noted that the resident 154 had requested a better understanding of the proposed location of the garage. 155 Subsequent to their phone conversations with and after staff’s explanation, the resident 156 stated that they had no problem with the proposal if the garage remained close to the 157 house and stayed at a 22’ addition despite their initial email in opposition. 158 Applicant/Property Owner 159 The applicant was not present in tonight’s audience. 160 Public Comment 161 Julie Viken, 1964 Prior Avenue N 162 Ms. Viken noted that the previous owner was a single woman; while this new owner 163 continually had tree vehicles in the driveway or parked on the street, immediately behind 164 the Viken’s driveway. Ms. Viken expressed concern during winter months in how those 165 additional vehicles would fit in; and had initially thought a good solution would be a two- 166 car width driveway rather than the current smaller width. Ms. VIken questioned if it was 167 viable to park more vehicles in the driveway, especially since one of them was apparently 168 a business truck. 169 Ms. Viken noted that she had walked around the immediate neighborhood to compare 170 other vehicle storage options; and noted that she had observed one home around the 171 corner with a similar 2-car garage structure. Even though the applicant had told 172 neighbors it was proposed 3’ beyond, Ms. Viken advised that it was actually 4.5’ beyond. 173 Ms. Viken also opined that she thought the proposed design looked larger than a typical 174 2-car garage. While she would prefer the applicant find a better vehicle parking solution, 175 Ms. Viken questioned if this was a good solution. 176 Member Daire expressed his disappointment that the applicant wasn’t present at tonight’s 177 meeting. Member Daire advised that he had spent time on-site trying to visualize the 178 proposed changes, and had noticed a truck with a business title. Member Daire stated 179 that this caused him to seek assurances that the applicant didn’t intend to operate his 180 business from home in that garage area, and that it was only intended for vehicle 181 storage. 182 Ms. Viken responded that the applicant’s business was off Snelling Avenue; but she had 183 noticed a boat and large number of boxes stored in their current garage. Ms. Viken 184 advised that this prevented them from using the garage for vehicles. 185 For the benefit of Member Daire, Chair Murphy clarified that Ms. Viken was a neighbor 186 and, while she may be familiar with this property and the applicant’s use of it, she could 187 not speak for the neighbor or his intent with the proposed garage structure. 188 During his review of the proposal, Member Daire questioned if the location of one of the 189 Birch trees on the lot would allow access to the second garage stall, opining that even 190 increasing the driveway width may necessitate removing that tree. Member Daire 191 expressed some degree of personal empathy for the applicant being able to access their 192 garage. 193 Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing at 6:28 p.m.; no one else spoke for or against. 194 Chair Murphy noted his observation of the business truck parked in the driveway and 195 other issues on-site; and asked staff if the applicant was approaching impervious surface 196 limits now or with this proposal. 197