Board grants Mueller variance for 5501 Trail, citing steep slope and stormwater constraints

5482161 · July 25, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals approved a variance Oct. 20 allowing a new single-family home at 5501 Trail to exceed the 35-foot height limit by roughly 2½ feet because steep topography, stormwater and sanitary sewer constraints made alternatives impractical.

Sheryl and Shane Mueller received board approval Oct. 20 for a variance to construct a new single-family home at 5501 Trail that exceeds the city's 35-foot height limit. The board found unique topography and stormwater constraints on the lot created an unnecessary hardship that justified the variance. An applicant (Shane Mueller) described the lot as "basically hanging off the side of a cliff," saying stormwater flows from much of the surrounding neighborhood down the hill through the property and that a sanitary sewer line runs through the backyard. He told the board alternatives ' including lowering the house to meet the 35-foot limit or using a flat roof ' would either place the front door below curb level or create an unattractive flat roof that would not fit the neighborhood. Doug, city zoning staff, explained the local definition of building height in areas with walkout basements and steep slopes, and said the property's grade and the municipal limit on how much grade may be changed constrained design alternatives. The applicants' plans exceed the 35-foot ordinance maximum by about 2.5 feet, according to the hearing record. Board members repeatedly cited the property's severe slope and localized flooding concerns when finding the "unique physical property limitation" required by the variance standard. A board member moved to approve the variance after discussion of hardship and public interest; another member seconded the motion and the board voted in favor. The board recorded no conditions beyond the variance approval. The applicants may proceed with the design approved at the hearing, subject to building-permit review.