Citation in context
March 3, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 3, 2016
ROLL CALL: Liza Streettt
Louis Clayton, Planner Anne Bishop
Kevin Heinz, Acting City Attorney Mel Disney
Rick Bliss Chairman Gary Soule
Chairman Soule called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.; acknowledging the late start. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that there are two matters up for consideration this evening and that there was a full complement of the Board (5 members) in attendance. All Board members and city staff introduced themselves.
The minutes of the November 5, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. There were a few changes that needed to be made and a clarification was needed pertaining to some information the City Attorney provided regarding extension requests. The Board voted to continue approval of these minutes until the next meeting to give the Planning Technician a chance to review the recording and make the appropriate revisions.
APPEAL FROM JEFF DAY, ARCHITECT ON BEHALF OF TOM AND SARA EIDELMAN, OWNERS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7726 MOHAWK PLACE
Chairman Soule verified that the applicant was in attendance.
Those wishing to speak were sworn in by Kathy Scott, Planning Technician/Recording Secretary.
Chairman Soule asked if the City had any exhibits to present.
Acting City Attorney Heinz presented the following exhibits:
Chairman Soule asked the applicant if he had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.
Mr. Day replied “no”.
Chairman Soule indicated that these exhibits would be made part of the record.
Day replied “no”. Chairman Soule indicated that these exhibits would be made part of the record.
2
Mr. Day, referencing the submittal packet which had already been distributed to the members, explained that the Eidelman’s have a 4 year old and a 1 year old; that they purchased the property 4 months ago and moved in 1 month ago. He stated that they did some minor interior work prior to their move-in and would like to connect the existing detached garage to the house.
Mel Disney asked if the garage currently has an existing man-door; noting that there was no floor plan included in the submittal, only a site plan.
Mr. Day replied “yes”.
Mel Disney asked how the owners will enter the house.
Mr. Day indicated that glass in the sunroom will be converted to a door.
Rick Bliss asked why the garage is situated where it is now.
Mr. Day replied that he did not know; he believes the garage was built for one to two owners ago.
Rick Bliss stated that he spoke with the previous owner of the property who was the one who had the garage/accessory structure built and he understands that it was placed where it is because that was the only place to put it to meet setbacks. He questions if the rules have changed or not (since 1998) but knows that it was not originally connected to the house was because it would not have met setbacks.
Mr. Day stated that things are different because the new owners, the Eidelmans, would like the two structures connected.
Rick Bliss referred to one of the questions on the application referring to practical difficulties and asking if the property can be used for what it is zoned; noting that the answer was “no” but the “why not” was not answered.
Louis Clayton informed Rick that the question is misleading and that the question “can the property be used for what it is zoned” has just been taken out. He advised the members to refer to pages 4 and 5 for the follow-up questions/answers.
Chairman Soule questioned if they were answering “no” to the previous comment.
Louis Clayton indicated that he does not know.
Rick Bliss referred to Page 3 of the staff report, questioning the increase in fire hazard if the two structures are connected.