CC MINUTES 09281999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes September 28, 1999 • Page 3 1 have is due to an extraordinarily long driveway because the detached garage sits far from the 2 house in the rear yard. The structure was built in 1957 and existed prior to the City's ordinances 3 being codified. 4 Commissioner Melsha stated that the Planning Commission denied the Petition for Variance 5 after a lengthy deliberation because there was not necessary evidence of a hardship and the 6 property could be utilized in its current condition. The Commission was apprehensive about 7 denying the variance, but in light of the City's ongoing efforts to resolve the floodwater issue, 8 the Commission was reluctant to authorize additional impervious surfaces for the variance. 9 Marks mentioned that there are generally three conditions for granting a variance and he was sur- 10 prised that the Doolan's property wasn't in compliance with any of those conditions. I l Commissioner Melsha responded that, although the property pre-existed the current Code, there 12 were not any other circumstances that were found which would warrant a variance. 13 Marks suggested the possibility of building a deck in such a way that it would not be considered 14 impervious. Commissioner Melsha offered that such an option was discussed by the 15 Commission, but it was determined that a deck is considered a structure, and thus impervious. Cavanaugh asked about the length of time the City had to act on the variance request. 17 Management Assistant Moore-Sykes stated that a Petition for Variance is valid for a 60 day time 18 period and verified that the Doolan's application was dated August 16, 1999 and, therefore, 19 would expire approximately October 16, 1999. 20 Cavanaugh mentioned that he had visited the Doolan's property and believed that a deck or Simi- . 21 lar structure would be beneficial to the appearance of the property and the surrounding neighbor- 22 hood. Cavanaugh felt that a deck would not be as impervious a surface as a patio, and would 23 add ambiance to the property. 24 Commissioner Melsha offered that the building inspector-would treat the deck as a structure, and 25 therefore, impervious, but questioned the possibility of researching options that would cause the 26 structure to be more pervious. 27 Cavanaugh stated that he did not understand the Code to say that a deck is an impervious surface 28 and suggested additional research of the Code. 29 Thuesen stated the possibility of a deck being considered pervious depending on the surface 30 underneath a deck. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that the building inspector considered decking to be an impervious surface because of the polyurethane and other surfaces placed underneath a deck to eliminate