7209 JUNIPER DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

Pearl Ftaddy presented the staff report (see Variance File No. 34-88) recommtanding that the variance be denied and showed slides of the project. No comments had been received by the staff either for or against the variance. In response to questions from the Board, Mrs. Maddy stated that the Staff was opposing the variance for the reason that the structure could be attached to the house and it would then meet all code requirements and would not need a variance since the height permitted would be 28 feet and the lot coverage would still be under the 35 pex�ent total lot coverage allowed in the zone. She also stated that the city has had enforcement problems with accessory structures that exceed the height and 1ot coverage limits for accessory buildings since in some cases in the past they have been converted to living units. Mrs. Burns testif'ied in favor of granting the variance as requested, stating that to attach thp room to the house wuuld increase the cost of construction tp $25,000 since it would have to be architecturally connected to the house and different standards of construction would appiy than if it was an accessory building. The two story accessory building would cost approximately $6500 to $8500 to construct and they could not afford the higher cost of attachinq it to the house. She stated that there would be no plunbing in the building which should resolve the Staff�s concern that the building would be converted to a living unit. She stated their old garage had been demolished and replaced with a smaller structure, and they needed storage space for lawn furniture, tools, and freezer, the fact that the house was small, the need for a studio for Mr. Burns to use for his painting hobby and the fact that Mr. Hurns activities are limited because of his age and health. She also stat.ed in response to a concern expressed by Mr. Ebert in regard to the appearance of the proposed structure that it would be compatible and in scale with the existing house and garage. Mr. Bennett made a motion to approve the variance as requested by the applicant with conditi�ns one and two of the staff recommendation but eliminating condition number three which limits the height to fifteen feet since Mrs. Burns has indicated there will be no plumbing in the structu�e, lot coverage of 35 percent would not be exceeded and the height limit is a technicality since there is a 28 fo4t height limit in the zone. Discussion followed regarding the height of the building with Mr. Ebert stating that the proportions of the building should be related to the existing buildings on the site. Other members stated they would feel more comfortable with granting the variance if they could see plans. Mrs. Burns stated that they did not have the plans done yet as they wanted ,to be sure they could go ahead with it before having plans done.