06-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Johnsrud stated his understanding is that as long as there is a 10 -foot separation, he can construct another 999 square foot building, but he cannot add on to this structure because it would go over the 1,200 square foot limit. Erickson asked if the applicant would be willing to sign away any other options to construct a second building in the future. Johnsrud indicated he would and that there are very few options on the lot for the second structure. Ressler asked whether that condition could be imposed by the City. Barnhart stated to his knowledge the City cannot take away those rights and that he would have to check with the City Attorney. Erickson indicated he is leaning towards granting the variance but subject to the stipulation that there will not be a second structure on the property. McCutcheon commented he is not a fan of this ordinance since it does not take into account a situation like this. The neighbors approve of the proposal, it is environmentally friendly, no additional driveway is needed, and the structure will be well screened. The only negative is it is against the ordinance, but he is allowed to build another 999 square foot structure. McCutcheon stated it is a good-looking garage and he is all for it. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. McCutcheon stated common sense -wise the proposal makes sense. It does not seem like the applicant is asking for much and that he agrees with every point the applicant made. Libby commented he is a boat and trailer guy but that the City has stipulations and guidelines for good reasons and Staff's recommendation is not to grant it. Erickson indicated he would agree with Commissioner McCutcheon, especially since the applicant would be giving up his rights to construct a second building on the property. Ressler noted the City cannot prohibit him from building another structure. Barnhart stated Staff will verify with the City Attorney on whether such a condition could be imposed but that Staff would like to hear comments from the Planning Commission on the application outside of that condition. Bollis stated what he sees makes a lot of sense, but it does not fit within the code. Bollis indicated he would be in favor of allowing the variance with the condition that there is no secondary building. Gettman asked why there is a 1,200 square foot restriction on an individual accessory building and how that number was picked, especially when another 999 square foot structure can be built on the lot.