10-10-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 15, 1988 Subject: #1332 Marcelo Gumucio, 980 Ferndale Road West - After -the -Fact Variances - Public Hearing Application - After -the -fact height variance for driveway entry pillars in excess of 3�' in height, in conjunction with setback variance for such pillars. Zoning District - LR-lA List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Letter of Request & Hardship Statement Survey John Gerhardson's Letter of 1/6/88 Gaffron's Letter of 1/25/88 Plan & Elevation Views of Pillars Pertinent Code Sections - A) Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C): The pillars are considered' an encroachment since they do not meet the maximum 3h' height limitation to be considered as a non -encroaching type fence. Existing height -df— pillars is 516" requiring a variance of 21. Applicant notes that no lighting Fixture or other upward extension of the pillars is anticipated at this time, however they would prefer to reserve the right to add a light globe if they determine additional driveway lighting is necessary. B) Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Since the pillars exceed 316" in height, they would normally be required to meet the minimum 50' front setback from the right-of-way, hence a setback variance is required. The existing pillars are within the property but abutting the front lot line. Discussion - The architect on this project, on two occassions, discussed these pillars with staff prior to their construction. In both instances, those discussions resulted in a letter to the architect confirming the City's position on the matter. Somehow, the architect managed to misinterpret the statements in both of thos<, letters and went ahead with pillar construction inside the property boundaries. Staff invites Planning Commission to read both those letters, and make your judgement. I believe the architect made incorrect presumptions about the definitions of right-of-way and front yard.