2016-08-03_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2 Page At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that to-date staff had 47 received no public comment. 48 At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the attached draft 49 resolution (Attachment D) addressed both variance requests on lines 60 and 65 50 respectively. As noted by Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd duly noted the need to 51 change the resolution title accordingly. 52 Applicant Greg Sampson, 3005 Woodbridge Street 53 Mr. Sampson provided additional photographic information and rationale for his 54 request for an 8’ extension versus a 5’ extension to Woodbridge. Mr. Sampson 55 noted the existing garage would be razed, but the storage shed in question would 56 stay, and the existing driveway removed. 57 Member Daire requested additional information from and clarified by Mr. 58 Sampson, including confirmation of the history and age of the existing garage of 59 at least sixty years; condition of the existing structure that had many structural and 60 water intrusion issues, and electrical service not up-to-code; proximity of the 61 existing garage with the nearby storage shed; and intended size of the proposed 62 new garage on the south side of the house approximately the same as the 63 existing structure (26’ wide x 32’ deep). Member Daire further questioned Mr. 64 Sampson on his intended use of the garage beyond vehicle storage (e.g. work 65 space). 66 Mr. Sampson stated he had considered many configurations for placement of a 67 new garage and this made the most sense with access off Woodbridge and not 68 impacting an existing huge Oak Tree in his yard that he didn’t want to lose. 69 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that city code allowed the 5’ 70 setback, but not the 8’ setback. 71 Mr. Sampson referenced his photos and sketch plan for proposed placement; and 72 impacts to the existing sidewalk location around the house, landscaping and front 73 steps into the house, and the house roofline that would be impacted by any other 74 configuration or placement if not allowed the 8’ variance setback request. Mr. 75 Sampson also addressed the impacts for a proposed 36’ wide service door that 76 would allow only 1’ on each side of the service door; and even if he installed a 77 smaller door, it would still leave little room on either side. 78 At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Sampson and Mr. Lloyd confirmed that there 79 was a structural advantage to align the garage wall with the back of the home 80 rather than extending the proposed garage by sliding it back. Mr. Sampson 81 displayed a photo looking north at the side of the home, and recommendations of 82 his contractor to follow the line of the roof 24’ to avoid a total roof reconstruction 83 with trusses, creating an even more extensive cost. Mr. Sampson provided other 84 photographs comparing a 5’ and 8’ setback for the Variance Board’s 85 consideration, and allowing him to avoid removing some landscaping in that area 86 around the house and the sidewalk as previously noted. If he was required to 87 demolish the existing front steps, re-pour the sidewalk right next to the home that 88 leads to the steps and front door, Mr. Sampson advised his contractor estimated 89 an additional $3,500. 90 Member Gitzen observed that it looked from the picture that the sidewalk could be 91 swung out with a landing in front of the garage door and without removing the 92 entire sidewalk around the house. 93 Mr. Sampson agreed it may be possible, but noted this scenario was how it had 94 been bid to him, and he hadn’t looked at the situation from that point of view. Mr. 95 Sampson stated to him this was a one-shot deal, and would only mean a 67’ 96 versus 70’ setback from Woodbridge Street with a 5’ extension. Mr. Sampson 97 recognized staff’s concerns with city code design standards to address pedestrian 98