2016-08-03_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 3, 2016 3 Page friendly issues; but opined he would still be back far enough that he didn’t see his 99 proposal interfering with any type of pedestrian issues. 100 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that in Low Density 101 Residential-1 zoning designations, the required setback from the front structure 102 was 30’, and noted that was from the front property line that was 10’-15’from the 103 street. 104 Mr. Sampson thanked the Variance Board for providing him a chance to clarify his 105 other variance request. Mr. Sampson noted he had been working on this proposal 106 for a long time and expressed his hope that it could be made to happen. 107 Public Hearing 108 David Secker, 2996 Northview Street (across street from subject parcel) 109 Mr. Secker advised that he had reviewed Mr. Sampson’s drawings; and provided 110 this proposal doesn’t present any safety issues, stated that he was a proponent of 111 the request. Mr. Secker stated he had no problem looking across his back yard 112 with this proposal. 113 Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing at approximately 5:59 p.m. with no one 114 appearing to speak for or against. 115 Deliberation 116 In his personal review of the staff report, Member Gitzen agreed with staff’s 117 recommendation for the side yard variance, and further didn’t see any practical 118 difficulty in allowing the requested 8’ extension either. Member Gitzen noted Mr. 119 Sampson presented his case well, and based on the roof line of the house and 120 sidewalk location, he agreed it was enough of a concern that he would suggest 121 future discussion by the Board. 122 Chair Murphy stated he had viewed the property earlier today, and noted the 123 existing driveway would be challenging especially in the winter; and therefore he 124 fully supported the side yard variance. Chair Murphy stated he could appreciate 125 Mr. Sampson’s viewpoint in not going back further with the proposed garage; but 126 noted city code had the 5’ setback provision for some time now. 127 Member Daire agreed with his colleagues, noting this had prompted his earlier 128 questions. Member Daire opined if the 8’ extension is not out of line with anything 129 other than the city’s current design standards, the purpose of a variance in 130 tailoring an application under these unique circumstances was met. Member Daire 131 referenced Mr. Sampson’s arguments put forth regarding structural issues to 132 consider in replacing the garage, and agreed with his analysis in trying to align the 133 back of the garage and home. Member Daire also noted the typical need for 134 working space in a garage in addition to vehicle storage, which he found 135 important, and therefore his inclination was that the additional 3’ was appropriate 136 in this case, inclining him to go along with the 8’ variance request, even though it 137 put him in conflict with staff’s recommendation to deny that particular variance 138 request. 139 Chair Murphy clarified that, for him, he could appreciate Mr. Sampson’s square 140 footage argument since this wasn’t new construction where he would be open to 141 design a house on the log. However, given the shape of the existing home and 142 sidewalk location, he was also inclined to support both variance requests. 143 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Sampson clarified that there would be an 144 entrance from the garage into the house, displaying the sketch plan indicating 145 location of that door on the northwest end of the house itself. 146 Mr. Sampson further clarified that square footage was not an issue for him, but 147 fitting the service door into the 8’ extension to get to the front yard. As explained 148