pm_030604 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Duncan asked if a one month delay would help resolve issues. Member Traynor asked if a 60 day extension may be necessary. Sandy Wondra, 413 Terrace Drive, asked for clarification regarding the Rambler Redesign Program. Why is there no price protection for the neighbors? Ms. Sieferman explained that she had only heard of objections this afternoon. Mr. Wilke said the swimming pool calculation should include the water area of the pool because some water may run off. Member Traynor focused on encroachment and impervious surface. Resident, 413 Judith, has a problem with back yard drainage, wrecking the fence. Drainage should be directed to the street. Deb Bloom explained the drainage review process. She said the roof line should drain to the street. Member Stone asked if swales can be upgraded easily. L Deb Bloom explained the difficulty of maintaining swales in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Wilke said the homeowner/applicant should be responsible for improving the swales. The Rambler Redesign program does not make sense in this neighborhood. Ms. Wondra explained the history of the neighborhood. There were no variances in the 1980s after the tornado. There is no porch extension beyond the front of the house. She is opposed to the home as being not consistent with the style/design of the new house. Member Stone asked what changes have occurred in regulations (impervious surfaces). Member Duncan asked if the applicant could create less variance by not requesting a front porch. Steve Rengel, Architect, explained the lot coverage and porch issues. The landscape pavers and pool create the need for impervious surface and could be removed. The proposal meets all height requirements. Member Peper explained that neighbors should have spoken with the applicant. Member Traynor asked why the front porch is necessary and why it is part of the design. Ms. Sieferman said the concrete stoop is less appealing. The porch or portico is a cover over the entry for guests at the door. It could be scaled back. Ms. Wondra explained it is not necessary to have two covered entries. Ms. Paula Lenhardt, 476 Terrace Drive, said not all resident are opposed to this project. She supported the Rambler Redesign concept to improve the looks of a house. Member Bakeman asked if the issues could be separated. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend approval of 585 square foot (5.3%) variance to Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) excluding condition D ("The front entry porch (covered entry) being setback a minimum ob 21.5 feet from the front property line and being limited to a size of 90 square feet) and to amend 7.3f (regarding gutters) to state water to flow to the street with gutters to accommodate water drainage with Member Stone suggested amendment. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Member Stone said the roof line may be difficult to move water from rear to front; could additional landscaping or perimeter control be used. She proposed an amendment to the motion to have the applicant to work proactively with staff. Ms. Sieferman asked if she adds water to the street could she be sued for additional for added water in the neighbor's basement. Thomas Paschke explained drainage flow to the street.