01/10/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

deviations have occurred from the original approved plans. In particular, Council required ? fencing along the rear property line, which does not currently exist. In addition to the two buildings proposed, the site will be affected by the Crocker-Steaxns extension, as frontage of the property will be taken for a new right turn lane for the nearby intersection. The City had requested the applicant show the area that would be affected and the proposed layout following road construction. The plans do not clearly show the new apron to be installed or details for the permanent sign location. Only 1 variance is required as the proposal was approved under a previous code which did not require the site be irrigated. The only variance required is a 30 foot variance for rear yard setbaclc from the property line which was once granted in 1986, but has since expired. She recommended the Commission forward the applicant to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendations on the variance requested and otherwise table the applicant so that engineering and other planning concerns could be addressed. Assistant Engineer Becker advised that additional storm water storage was required in accordance to current codes for the new impervious area. She advised that Mr. Boss indicated he may want to obtain a variance from Council to waive the storm water requirements. He also indicated that the existing 12 inch storm water outlet for the detention system was plugged. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the variance which was granted for the rear yard setback in 1986 had expired. He advised that it was appropriate for the commission to review existing site conditions. The code requiring irrigation does not apply as it was adopted after 1986, and the proposal is grandfathered with respect to that issue. Pertaining to the issue of items not completed under the prior approval that would be up to the Building Department to enforce. However as the applicant is before the board to seek a variance it is within the scope of the commission to look at current conditions on the site and for the commission to make recommendations pertaining to those issues. The matter of storm water retention which is an engineering concerns, are not grandfathered from meeting current codes and the engineer is within her right to address the need for additional storm water capacity. There is a section of the city code which suggests the applicant can seek a variance from council. Storm water issues are not grandfathered as it is within the right of the engineer to request the applicant meet current city code requirements. It is also within the right of the commission to make a recommendation to council regarding the anticipated storm water variance the applicant may seek. The missing fence mentioned is a requirement not an option therefore that is how the commission should address the issue. Applicants presentation: Mr. Boss the owner reviewed that he built the current buildings on the site 20 years ago and was present to answer any questions the commission may have regarding the elapsed variance needed. Mr. Lasko questioned why the deviation from what was approved in 1986 resulted, i.e. fencing along rear property line missing. Mr. Boss was not sure of what was requested 20 years ago, but his neighbors never wanted him to erect a rear yard fence because the pedestrian traffic through his driveway -would be pushed onto their lots. Pertaining to storm water issues raised, when the plan was first developed it met all city storm water detention requirements. The system was designed with galvanized pipes buried into the ground surrounded by gravel and normally retains water. The five buildings were designed to drain water through the 3 inch outlet which is currently clogged and has been since the system was first put in place. He was advised by Ms. 2