Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 14, 2019 <br />Page 4 <br />1 correlation to what the Council would be approving or denying tonight, allowing sidewalk access <br />2 from the front to the back of the lot. <br />3 <br />4 Councilmember Stille asked whether the new proposal is to have a five-foot sidewalk attached to <br />5 further impervious concrete. Mrs. Wernimont stated the concrete sidewalk would circle around a <br />6 proposed deck and the current concrete patio will be removed. Councilmember Stille asked if <br />7 there will be no concrete wider than five feet. Mrs. Wernimont answered in the affirmative. <br />8 <br />9 Mayor Faust asked if there will be any concrete within five feet of the property line. Mrs. <br />10 Wernimont stated the sidewalk will be within five feet of the property as sidewalks are not <br />11 counted for setback encroachments. <br />12 <br />13 Councilmember Jenson referenced the diagram and asked how wide is the sidewalk at the 45- <br />14 degree angle. Mr. Wernimont estimated 3.5 feet. Councilmember Jenson asked why the <br />15 sidewalk expands to five feet in width. Mr. Wernimont explained it will have wrap around steps <br />16 to the landing. Councilmember Jenson asked if the landing could be relocated to the back yard <br />17 instead of the side. Mrs. Wernimont stated their intent is to make it accessible from all areas of <br />18 their yard and more open. Councilmember Jenson asked what it would take to meet the 35% <br />19 impervious threshold. <br />20 <br />21 Mayor Faust asked the Council to react to what was presented at the public hearing and not <br />22 attempt to negotiate a new plan at this point. He clarified that this is not a negotiation and the <br />23 current situation was not created by the City. He believed the issue is trying to get 'ten pounds in <br />24 a five -pound bag' and the 9,000 square foot threshold and 35% impervious restriction are not up <br />25 for negotiation, noting the City has significantly invested to address stormwater issues. He felt <br />26 the sidewalk was being expanded to look like a patio, which gives him pause to consider the <br />27 front. He noted this property has other projects that did not have a proper permit, which results <br />28 in this property consuming staff time and costs. He again asked the Council to deal with the <br />29 three recommendations of the Planning Commission. <br />30 <br />31 Councilmember Stille agreed to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations rather <br />32 than `acting on the fly.' <br />33 <br />34 Councilmember Randle asked if the property owner was not aware of the project being out of <br />35 Code. Mrs. Wernimont stated they had no idea, that is why they hired a contractor, and there has <br />36 been no final inspection so they want this resolved. <br />37 <br />38 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Gray, to adopt Resolution 19- <br />39 043; a Resolution Approving a Request for a 5.3 Foot Variance from the Required front Yard Set <br />40 Back for a Front Stoop, Denying a Request for a 1.6% Variance from the Impervious Surface <br />41 Standard of 35%, and Denying a Request for a Variance to the Required Side Yard Setback of 5 <br />42 feet for Patio Areas, located in the R-1 District at 2609 Pahl Avenue. <br />43 <br />44 Councilmember Stille stated this and previous Councils have history in not approving requests <br />45 too close to the property line due to neighborhood impact or lot coverage requests as the City has <br />46 spent $17 million from the State to fix water drainage issues, including in the Pahl Avenue area. <br />