Laserfiche WebLink
assurances. City staff noted the case originated from a complaint, confirmed several substantial <br />variances were required, and cautioned that the requests exceeded code limits and would run <br />with the land. Concerns were raised about the scale of the variances, neighborhood impact, and <br />compliance with zoning standards, while acknowledging some property maintenance issues had <br />been corrected. <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve item number one, a five-foot variance for a shed; <br />seconded by Mr. Ammons. <br />During deliberations, a board member noted the extensive backyard coverage from the pool, <br />garden, shed, and chicken coop, but acknowledged the applicant's efforts to keep the property <br />orderly and to correct prior violations. It was observed that the sheds were placed on existing <br />concrete pads and replaced a deteriorated structure, raising questions about whether relocating <br />them would create an unnecessary hardship given the cost already incurred. While broader <br />concerns remained about overall yard coverage, the board expressed support for the shed <br />variance specifically, citing limited placement options and functional necessity. <br />Motion Passed: 3-0 <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve the next five variances as written: seconded by Mr. <br />Ammons. <br />During discussion, board members expressed hesitation due to the substantial nature of the <br />chicken coop variances and concern that the project would not have been approved if presented <br />before construction. While sympathy was expressed for the homeowner's investment and good - <br />faith efforts to maintain the property, it was noted that lack of knowledge of the code did not <br />eliminate the need for compliance. Members debated whether denying the variances would <br />require significant redesign and reduction of the chicken area, weighed neighbor support and site <br />conditions, and acknowledged that the board was required to render a decision despite <br />discomfort with reviewing a completed project. <br />Motion Passed: 3-0 - <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve a 10% variance for excessive rear yard lot coverage; <br />seconded by Mr. Ammons. <br />Motion Passed: 3-0 <br />354-2025; Pat Heilman; 4269 Clague Rd. <br />The board heard a request for a variance to allow installation of a generator in the front yard on a <br />corner lot due to the location of existing gas and electric meters. The applicant explained that <br />safety clearances, utility locations, and manufacturer requirements limited feasible placement <br />options. City staff confirmed the placement constituted a front -yard location under code and <br />noted aesthetic concerns, while suggesting potential screening. Board members questioned <br />2 <br />