03-20-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' .V“•it »^.1T ■ ; :>^^ .. v^.i■■'•• • ■ •• fe-Vfr •,;..'v nlng Administrator been undergoing a rather inning Commission, with no isues have been referred to sndatlon in recent months, pertaining to the following nmendatlon from Planning buildings (and accessory and allowing higher rail irs, entry monuments and eshore areas. & B at previous meetings, g Commission but a staff as not been reviewed or llscusslon. with appropriate exhibits r?!' ''i 5>: - wmmm *:■.■M■m::n w mm ¥&^0W'M S'V:’/'*v mmmm * • .•"Vr;?.. y :•.,■■_•• .V; ; “v--•^^.^:^••y;?^ iS;»» i*;® ’■■ ■ A^Eis^-j'Y> T?-- :.♦■ / mmhb-.^- %.-V ■• •. ' <:■ - • . M V‘- ••■^ I-,-'.V m. mm •. i- isesiiSii^sKi if ftri.7-.^.•i ■^r>-:;;i:m',-i.'■ V ■■iy-":4m. . !-• • ‘7.t i~ >.i P m m •: ■ »^£g- J» . ^ ■•• ■ ..'•. r- ►-V i ■■HI,Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning ft Zoning Administrator Date: March 13, 1989 Subject: Accessory Structures Zoning Amendment Action to Date ~ This proposed amendment was originally brought before Planning Commission through a staff memo dated June 29, 1987. A public hearing was held on July 20, 1987 at which there were no public comments, and the public hearing was closed. No dicussion occurred at that meeting, and the issue was tabled. Ensuing discussions by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1987, February 25, 1988, May 18, 1988, and July 6, 1988, resulted only in expansion of the issues but no conclusion. Variance vs. Conditional Use? ~ At this time, staff would request that Planning Commission refocus on the original issue. The McMillan tennis court building on Fox Street posed the question of whether oversized accessory structures ever can be justified by hardship to the property. If not, should they be considered as a conditional use with specific performance standards that must be met? Planning Commission must determine what degree of control is necessary regarding oversized accessory structures. The current status as a variance allows the City to attach any legitimate, related standards to a building size variance. As a variance, the question then boils down to whether the Planning Commission and Council are comfortable with granting a building size variance based on each applicant's individual needs for such a structure. The question of hardship must be balanced against the fact that making oversized accessory buildings a conditional use will reduce the ability of the City to specify conditions more stringent than the performance standards set up in the conditional use section. In other words, the City must grant the conditional use permit if all minimum standards are met, those standards must be conservative if all potential situations are covered. hence to be <. ■■ L-'. CV % 'm »Ai|mMm : i. - r.ifc 'i" iimmmmmmm i%: -m -' ••.-■■■ mimmm:■> ifllsai m mtamst- m.' ■ my ' ^ ,;-y^^- ;■:•:'■. * ■-yy >y‘ -y'-'.-. "*. '■■"■-ii vi:yc^Sy’i.;a: * . *-• .H /: •, J.- ;■• ••, >.' Av -. ., « ■ •' . ...; I tat _ -.- :r;:- >. ;1 y4i -if< ••" ■V ..:itB •• • mmm mm M r-y mm I Li!. ‘ A. , .■ C • nB- raivv ym A . mam %-w. ^ A- s««mm m I ■ ^ ;■ yip al