CC PACKET 05282019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

correlation to what the Council would be approving or denying tonight, allowing sidewalk access 1 from the front to the back of the lot. 2 3 Councilmember Stille asked whether the new proposal is to have a five-foot sidewalk attached to 4 further impervious concrete. Mrs. Wernimont stated the concrete sidewalk would circle around a 5 proposed deck and the current concrete patio will be removed. Councilmember Stille asked if 6 there will be no concrete wider than five feet. Mrs. Wernimont answered in the affirmative. 7 8 Mayor Faust asked if there will be any concrete within five feet of the property line. Mrs. 9 Wernimont stated the sidewalk will be within five feet of the property as sidewalks are not 10 counted for setback encroachments. 11 12 Councilmember Jenson referenced the diagram and asked how wide is the sidewalk at the 45-13 degree angle. Mr. Wernimont estimated 3.5 feet. Councilmember Jenson asked why the 14 sidewalk expands to five feet in width. Mr. Wernimont explained it will have wrap around steps 15 to the landing. Councilmember Jenson asked if the landing could be relocated to the back yard 16 instead of the side. Mrs. Wernimont stated their intent is to make it accessible from all areas of 17 their yard and more open. Councilmember Jenson asked what it would take to meet the 35% 18 impervious threshold. 19 20 Mayor Faust asked the Council to react to what was presented at the public hearing and not 21 attempt to negotiate a new plan at this point. He clarified that this is not a negotiation and the 22 current situation was not created by the City. He believed the issue is trying to get ‘ten pounds in 23 a five-pound bag’ and the 9,000 square foot threshold and 35% impervious restriction are not up 24 for negotiation, noting the City has significantly invested to address stormwater issues. He felt 25 the sidewalk was being expanded to look like a patio, which gives him pause to consider the 26 front. He noted this property has other projects that did not have a proper permit, which results 27 in this property consuming staff time and costs. He again asked the Council to deal with the 28 three recommendations of the Planning Commission. 29 30 Councilmember Stille agreed to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations rather 31 than ‘acting on the fly.’ 32 33 Councilmember Randle asked if the property owner was not aware of the project being out of 34 Code. Mrs. Wernimont stated they had no idea, that is why they hired a contractor, and there has 35 been no final inspection so they want this resolved. 36 37 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Gray, to adopt Resolution 19-38 043; a Resolution Approving a Request for a 5.3 Foot Variance from the Required front Yard Set 39 Back for a Front Stoop, Denying a Request for a 1.6% Variance from the Impervious Surface 40 Standard of 35%, and Denying a Request for a Variance to the Required Side Yard Setback of 5 41 feet for Patio Areas, located in the R-1 District at 2609 Pahl Avenue. 42 43 Councilmember Stille stated this and previous Councils have history in not approving requests 44 too close to the property line due to neighborhood impact or lot coverage requests as the City has 45 spent $17 million from the State to fix water drainage issues, including in the Pahl Avenue area. 46 8