6.1. SR 03-17-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Ci Council 6.1. Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Coxnmuni Develo ment March 17, 2008 Chris Leesebex ,Park Planner Item Description Reviewed by Request by Thomas Bamford for Variance to the Maximum exem Barnhart, Plannin Mana x Allowable Accessory Structure Standards in the Rl a Zoning Reviewed by District, Public Hearing -Case No. V OS-03 Action Requested Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Variance request, as illustrated on drawings dated 1-28-2008, because: 1. Criteria #1 & #4 are not met for granting a variance, as the applicant is able to construct accessory structures without the variance. Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 6,100 square feet of accessory structures. This would be 2,100 square feet over what is allowed. If the properties in the subject plat had not been granted a lot size variance, this request may not have even needed a variance, as it could have been a full 10-acre parcel. Board of Adjustment Discussion The Plamung Commission denied the request by a 4-2 vote. The foot commissioners opposing the variance felt they need to look at variances very carefully and not make their decision based on emotions. They also noted that approving one variance (like the lot size for the subject property and the two adjacent parcels) can have a "snow ball" effect, which is the case with this request. If the prior variance had not been granted, one may not be required now. The two cotnnussioners supporting the variance believed that when the lots were created, they were considered 10-acre lots that received a variance to be .17-acres smaller and that they should be still considered that for calculating the accessory structure size. It was also noted that percentage of lot coverage the applicant is requesting is less than what the ordinance could allow on a 10-acre pazcel. • 8,000 sq. ft. on 10-acres would be 7.8% lot coverage • 6,100 sq. ft. on 9.83-acrz r v~ould be 1.4% !at coverage It was felt the requested size was within the intent of the size requirements. The Commission did understand that the applicant already has financial commitments to the structure sizes, as they have been purchased and are on site. S:\PL~ll9NING IvL9IN\Case Files\Vaziance\V 08-03 Ramfocd\V 0&03_CC.doc