06-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ressler stated if they want to change the ordinance, that is something that could be considered in the future, but that the Planning Commission has to go off the rules as they exist today. Libby stated in his view the idea of trying to limit the applicant from building more structure later by placing a contingency on the approval is not within the scope of the Planning Commission's decision to make. Libby indicated he would not be in favor of recommending a contingency that would deprive this applicant from having other structures on his property without him obtaining legal counsel, and that the Planning Commission has a guideline to follow regardless if they feel it is flawed at this point. Erickson indicated he would be in favor of a motion to approve the variance and at the same time ask Staff to work on an appropriate condition that might apply to this particular application. Ressler asked if Commissioner Erickson's motion would be based on the condition and recommendation to deny the applicant's right to a future structure at some point. Erickson stated he would approve it subject to language being drafted. Gettman suggested they ask the City Attorney how that language could be attached to the deed since a variance would be allowing a successor property owner to put another accessory structure on the property. Barnhart stated he is hearing some support from the Commission about supporting the variance with a desire to limit the construction of a second structure. The Commission's questions about opening the door to others is why the Commission reviews the practical difficulties, the uniqueness of the lot, and the standards for the variance. If those items do not meet the standards, the application should be denied, and reviewing the ordinance for possible changes is separate from this application. Libby asked where it would leave them if the motion is passed and the attorney declines the proposal. Barnhart stated if the motion is done as recommended, the City Council can choose what they want to follow. The City Council can either remand it back to the Planning Commission for further discussion or they can make a different motion. Ressler stated identify some practical difficulties Erickson moved, Bollis seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000027, Mike Johnsrud, 135 Luce Line Ridge, granting of a variance to exceed the allowable square footage for an oversize accessory structure, with the condition that a second accessory structure not be allowed on the property at any point in the future. Thiesse stated he can vote for the motion in order to get it before the City Council, but that he is not in favor of the stipulation. McCutcheon stated the ultimate goal is to reduce massing and that he would be in favor of the variance without the condition. Ressler noted the Planning Commission will be voting on the motion that includes that condition. If the motion fails, a new motion can be made. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 3; Gettman, McCutcheon, and Libby opposed.