pf_03236 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Member Egli agreed with Member Mulder; the hardships are size and length of driveway. Other arrangements could be made to put vehicles on and store them outside. The proposed garage is too large. Member Olson stated the owner knew what the issues were, but that the front setback creates the hardship because of the need for more driveway pavement. Chair Klausing asked if the hardship allows variance of up to 40% site coverage from the 30% coverage requirement. Member Mulder asked what the impervious surface would be with a 750 s.f. garage (39.2%) including the patio area. Member Olson asked ifthe II % variance to impervious surface is all- inclusive. Motion: Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to recommend approval of the variance from the required lot coverage of a residential lot (30%) as requested by Robert Reichenback and Gail Anderson based on the following: Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a physical hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed the permitted lot coverage; the hardship was not created by the applicant; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a unique physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, specifically the narrow shape of the lot and requiring an extended length of driveway; and, Whereas, there is not a reasonable alternative design that could be accomplished without a variance; and, Whereas, granting the variance would not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission has determined that the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance; and, Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Reichenbach! Anderson request to recommend approval of a variance to increase the residential lot coverage from 30% to 39.5%.