Laserfiche WebLink
recc~ by the Planning and Zoning Omm~ssioa (~ March 19, 1987. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zi~merman, ~-~issioners Peterson, <br />Deemer, Tar~ue, Bendriksen, Shum~ay amd B0well. Voting No~ None. <br /> <br /> For Variance Fr~m Ma~gm~ ~ioht Allowance l~or <br />~cessory_ Structure: Case Of Mr. Jeff grikaon.. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that Mr. Erikson's building permit appli~tion indicated <br />that the structure would be a standard garage with a full basement; there <br />was no indicatio~t~h~t~_i_~t would exceed height restrictions. During <br />construction, ~'s contractor informed him that for not much <br />difference in (Dst he..oogld .change the roof pitch to allow usable space <br />above the garage. ~ proceeded with that d~ange to construction, <br /> <br />the Building Inspector noticed the height violation and imposed a stop work <br />order. <br /> <br />Mr. Erikson stated that he did not intentionally violate height <br />restrictions and noted that his property is zoned B-1 and he would be <br />allcwed to build a 35' high office building. <br /> <br />Ommmtssioner Deemer noted that Mr. Erikson's partially constructed building <br />is within setback for B-1 zones; he would also have to submit a site plan <br />to construct an office building. <br /> <br />Mr. Erikson stated that when he applied for the building permit, he <br />mentioned he would be having a loft area that obviously should have been <br />recognized as exceeding the 16 feet height requirement amd was not. <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that after further re~iew, staff has also determined that <br />Mr. Erikson's building encroaches the setback. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued whether or not the accessory structure can be considered <br />as being located in front of the principle structure according to <br />ordinances that address corner lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Erikson stated that currently he would use the building for storage but <br />in the future he would like to convert it to an apartment and office space. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Howell and seconded by Commissioner LaDue, for <br />discussion, that due to the circum~ances involwd and errors made by staff <br />and the applicant, Mr. Jeff Erikson's case be referred to the City Attorney <br />and City Council. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Ccenissioner Rendriksen stated that if action other <br />than denial is going to take place, then the issue of a site plan should <br />also be addressed. Chairman Zimmerman noted that one of Mr. Erikson's <br />options would be to go through a site plan for a building in a B-1 zone; a <br />site plan and survey would also prove whether or not the building is within <br />the setback. Mr. Erikson repeated that he told Mr. Wirz that the building <br />would have a loft; Mr. Wirz should have recognized at that time that the <br />building would exceed 16' in height. Mr. Hendriksen noted that it is <br />possible to build a garage with a loft and not exceed 16 feet. <br /> Board of Adjustment/March 26, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />