Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant asks for 6‑ft height variance on steep lot at 5 Tomahawk Lane; neighbor says view will be blocked
Summary
A proposed attached garage and second‑level work space at 5 Tomahawk Lane requires a 6‑foot height variance because the UDO uses an average weighted grade on a 24% slope; neighbors expressed concern the taller structure would block lake views. The board requested renderings and comparables and left the hearing open.
Steph Ferradino, representing the owner Michelle Kellman, asked the board for a 6‑foot height variance for an addition at 5 Tomahawk Lane, saying the property’s steep, irregular lot produces an "average weighted elevation" that makes a modest 27‑ft structure register as 41 feet under the UDO calculation. "The height we're looking for... is not because we're seeking an incredibly tall building to build. It's just relative to the slope," Ferradino told the board.
Designer Sue Davis (introduced by Ferradino) explained how the UDO’s perimeter‑weighted calculation produced the 41‑foot height figure and said the planned garage would include a small second‑level work space used primarily for the owner's business and storage. "We were in touch with both Patrick and Richard at the city," Davis said, describing surveys and a soils/stormwater memo included with the submission.
Neighbor Steven Hoffman said the proposed extra 7 feet "completely blocks" his view of the lake and raised prior property‑line and excavation disputes he said involved the applicant; he urged the board to deny relief. "That extra 7 foot completely blocks us," Hoffman said.
Board members focused on alternatives to the variance — splitting the accessory structure, eliminating the breezeway connection, lowering plate heights or reducing second‑floor programing — and asked the applicant to provide neighborhood comparables, renderings from Arrowhead Road and Tomahawk Lane to show visual impact from typical viewpoints, and additional analysis on whether a standalone garage (or a one‑story design) could avoid the variance. The hearing remains open for more materials.
