06-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Oakden stated one of the purposes is the size of the lot. Since this lot is under three acres, it would fall under that threshold. Curtis stated the table is a sliding scale and is based on the size of the lot. The amount of allowable square footage increases as the lot size gets bigger. Curtis indicates she does not know what the rationale was when that limit was created in the 1990s. Barnhart stated Staff did not change that ratio with the latest amendment. Staff encounters that question quite a bit and runs into situations where the next applicant will come forward and want one extra foot. Staff does not have sheaths of information to back up the number, but that is where it has been set, and the application has to be judged based on the uniqueness of the lot. Gettman asked if there is some practical difficulty in not conforming with the 1,200 square foot limit. Gettman indicated he is not in favor of a variance. Thiesse stated part of the ordinance is to control massing, but in controlling massing, the City will let him build a larger structure than what he is requesting, which is really not controlling massing. Thiesse stated in his view a new building would be wider and have a peaked roof on it, which creates more massing than what the applicant is proposing. Thiesse stated in his mind they are meeting the intent of the code since it is to reduce massing. Ressler commented an argument could be made that a 5 -foot setback variance would probably be easier to get a variance for than this. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could look at an oversized structure in lieu of an accessory structure. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can encourage the application of a condition foregoing a second structure. Ressler stated perhaps they could change the language and say that this is the accessory structure and that they are just allowing him to attach the second structure. Ressler indicated he is in support of the application on the condition that some sort of contingency be attached allowing no other structure later. Oakden stated if the City Attorney determines that condition is not deemed feasible, Staff would like some other direction from the Planning Commission. Ressler stated without that contingency in place, he personally would not be in favor of it since it is not allowed by the ordinance. If the stipulation is not in place, he would recommend denial. Thiesse noted this has to do with the fact that the property owner is allowed an additional 999 square feet, and if this is approved, the applicant would only be allowed 300 and some feet of another structure. McCutcheon stated under common sense, if the goal is to reduce massing, the ordinance should be looked at again to see why someone cannot have one large building versus two. Ressler asked whether he would still be in support of the structure if a condition preventing a second structure were not allowed. McCutcheon indicated he would be in favor of it either way.