2009_1116_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

d. The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft ...: Although the garage on this property may house watercraft, this would not be its primary purpose, and Planning � Division staff believes that it would not be located near enough to the public water to � generate any kind of safety concern. � e. The impact the proposed use may have on the water quality of the water body is � not excessive: Planning Division staff believes that a 1,008-square-foot garage as a � coNDiT1oNAL usE in the proposed location would not have any adverse effects on � Langton Lake that would not also be caused by a permitted structure. � 6.9 If the vAx1ANCE request discussed above is not approved, the applicant has not yet found � a garage design that will meet his needs and comply with code requirements, but the � Planning Commission can identify any concerns it might have about a 1,008-square-foot � garage and require Mr. Martin to work with staff to address those issues. � 6.10 Sased on the current aerial photography, the existing driveway appears to be inconsistent � with two current Code standards: the maximum width of 26 feet at the front property line � established in �703.04S1a (M�imum Driveway Width) and the 5-foot minimum setback � from a side property line established in �703.0459 (Driveways on Private Property). � Soth of these nonconforming conditions (if they, in fact, exist) can be remedied by � removing that part of the driveway that lies within the required side property line setback. � 7.O PUBLIC HEARING � The duly noticed public hearing for the joint coNDiT1oNAL usE/vAx1ANCE application � was held by the Planning Commission on November 4, 2009. No communication was � received from the public before or after the public hearing, nor was anyone but the � applicant in attendance to speak about the issue. Planning Commissioners were � supportive of the proposed conditional use and, while the Commissioners were � empathetic to Mr. Martin's frustrations with the accessory structure height requirements � of the City Code, they were unable to find the sort of hardships necessary for the ' approval of the requested vAx1ANCE. Draft minutes of the public hearing are included with this staff report as Attachment E. H.O RECOMMENDATION � 8.1 After reviewing the vAx1ANCE application, the Planning Commission found that there are � no unique circumstances on the property that justify approval of a vAx1ANCE, that the � proposed garage is not consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and would be � out of character in a first-ring suburban city, and that the applicant's storage needs can be � reasonably accommodated in compliance with the requirements of the City Code. Sased � on these findings, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (i.e., 6-0) to recommend � denial of the requested vAx1ANCE, prohibiting an accessory structure from having walls � in excess of 9 feet tall. Planning Division staff supports this recommendation. � 8.2 In its review of the coNDiT1oNAL usE application, the Planning Commission found that a � 1,008-square-foot garage on this property would not have adverse impacts pertaining to � the criteria to be considered with such requests. Sased on these findings, the Planning � Commission voted unanimously (i.e., 6-0) to recommend approval of an accessory � structure with a 1,008-square-foot footprint as a coNDiT1oNAL usE, subject to the following conditions: PF09-033 RCA 111609.doc Page 7 of 8