Laserfiche WebLink
Session 170 I, Minutes <br />July 7, 1997 <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorffwanted to clarify to Mr. Pedersen that the application shows that it is tempered glass and that there would not <br />be any air infiltration. It did not sound, to Mr. Ollendorff, like a screened in enclosure, but a room addition. Mr. Pedersen <br />asked for Mr. Kirk to come up and clarify, because he had understood it was a combination. Mr. Kirk replied that it was <br />termed athree season porch. It will have windows, but they will slide open with screens behind them. There would not be <br />any heating or air conditioning, but there would be an overhead fan. It is not a room addition. The structure would not <br />meet the requirements for an actual room addition. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer asked the City Manager if he was correct in remembering that any attempt to enclose this permanently or to <br />make it a useable room would require an additional site plan permit or review - if it was discovered. <br /> <br />Mr. Pedersen commented, while Mr. Ollendorffwas looking for an answer to Mr. Schoomer's question, that every <br />homeowner that would make this same request would have to be approved by the Homeowners Association as well as <br />receiving an additional permit from the City. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Schoomer's question, Mr. Ollendorff replied that technically this is an amendment to the subdivision <br />restrictions and it would permit anyone to build this type of porch in their rear yard. Even if that were not the case, the <br />precedent that is established would be relatively binding on the Council if it received additional applications in the future. <br />The applicant indicates that there are several others in the subdivision that would be interested in this type of addition to <br />their homes. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer said that the question was whether this addition should be heated or air conditioned. If Council permitted <br />this as a screened porch, would it not have to come before Council again so that this could then be considered to be a <br />room addition and a permanent installation. Mr. Ollendorffsaid that it was an enclosure and Council is deciding whether to <br />allow construction, in this case, of a screened in or partially glassed in porch. Council needs to decide whether or not <br />homeowners in the subdivision can utilize part of their rear lot for construction. It would not have to come back, if they <br />were to decide, at a later date, to make it more substantial. Mr. Ollendorff said he did not want to confuse the issue, but <br />once the Council acts on this, if approved, the applicant would still have to obtain a building permit and building code <br />requirements might limit what could be constructed. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman asked Mr. Ollendorff how Council's approval of this particular conditional use could be extended to all the <br />other homes in this subdivision. It would seem like any of the other homes would also have to come before Council for any <br />kind of conditional use of their property. Mr. Ollendorff replied that normally that would be the case, but that this <br />subdivision operates under a conditional use permit for the entire subdivision, which applied to every lot within the <br />subdivision. Mr. Lieberman said that he could not see any problem with the change, if it was desirable among the <br />homeowners. <br /> <br />Mrs. Thompson asked ifa clause could be added that stated that no true room additions could be built on the lots in the <br />subdivision for protection of the trustees, so to limit the construction just to these enclosed porches. She could see that <br />these porches would be a great property improvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer asked if this type of addition should become a typical practice within the subdivision, what it would do to the <br />statutory requirements of open space that the City must maintain for this project. Mr. Schoomer explained that <br />municipalities are required to maintain a certain amount of open space. Mr. Ollendorff responded that a variance is given <br />from those requirements, which is within Council's authority. Mr. Schoomer said that this is true up to a fixed percentage. <br />Mr. Ollendorffsaid that both the private and common open space areas meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, <br />but the Council has the authority to vary from these. Mr. Schoomer asked if the variance was absolute or if it was limited to <br />a percentage of the space, being that some standards could be varied by only twenty percent and would this project fall into <br />that category. Mr. Ollendorffsaid that he was correct. <br /> <br /> <br />