pm_110409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 04, 2009 Page 2 accessory structure as a Conditional Use, and a Variance to Section 1004 (Residence Districts) of the City Code to allow the walls of the proposed accessory structure to exceed the 9-foot height limit. Mr. Lloyd noted that the requested variance was to more affordably accommodate a 12-foot tall overhead garage door; according to the proposed building elevations (included with this staff report as Attachment C); with the apparent desired wall height of approximately 13-14 feet. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use request, subject to conditions, but DENIAL of the requested variance; based on the comments and findings, and subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report dated November 4, 2009. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s rationale in recommending denial of the requested variance was based on their interpretation of hardship criteria, and there being no finding to support any hardship criteria. Commissioner Boerigter sought clarification, based on Section 6.5 of the staff report, of the potential impervious coverage ratio of 25% being exceeded; however, noted that there was no staff recommended condition to address this. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff would monitor this calculation administratively through standard code requirements, as with other code obligations. Mr. Lloyd noted that the applicant had yet to submit to staff a highly detailed site plan, at which time those calculations could be determined to ensure mitigation was addressed. Mr. Lloyd opined that he didn’t anticipate that there would be a significant increase in impervious coverage with the proposed building. Commissioner Wozniak observed that the Planning Commission could only approve a variance if undue hardship was found; and noted that staff was indicating that none existed; and also noting that alternative designs were available to the applicant without a variance, as indicated in staff’s discussion with the applicant. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the definition of hardship, based on the standards applied in State Statute and City Code and concurred that staff was unable to find a defined hardship. Mr. Lloyd noted that alternative designs were available; however, that with more specialized design, there would be additional cost incurred by the applicant. Applicant, Richard Martin, 2970 Mildred Avenue Mr. Martin clarified that his original request had been for a twelve foot (12’) wall, with a twelve foot (12’) door; however, he advised that he could go down to eleven feet (11’), and yet accommodate the height of the motor home, and thus only deviate two feet (2’) from City Code for a nine-foot (9’) wall, and remain within Code for the height at the center point for the peak. Mr. Martin advised that without that height accommodation, it would require them parking the motor home directly in the center of the building, preventing easy access and efficient storage. Mr. Martin noted that, by moving the motor home to indoor rather than outdoor storage, it would be good for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wozniak questioned if there had been complaints from neighbors about the outdoor storage of the recreational vehicle. Mr. Martin advised that the next door neighbor has complained about this only feasible outdoor storage location that accommodates City Code, as it blocks the view from their windows to the south. Chair Doherty requested ownership information on the motor home; with Mr. Martin responding that the motor home was owned by his grandfather. Public Comment