Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 9, 2012 <br />via a driveway over an unimproved portion of Rose Lane from Savage <br />Lane. The Planner noted that the front yard is not adjacent to an improved <br />public street, but given it is adjacent to street right-of-way, it is defined as <br />the front yard under the Code. The Code allows outdoor storage as <br />Anderson is requesting in the rear yard of a property fully screened from <br />surrounding properties. Anderson is requesting a Variance to allow <br />storage in the front yard. <br />The Plainer reviewed the new variance standards established by State <br />Statute. These standards state that when considering variances, the City is <br />required to find there are practical difficulties in complying with the <br />zoning regulations, and that due to unique conditions on the property, the <br />applicant's alternative results in using the parcel in a reasonable manner. <br />When the City finds these conditions exist, it may grant the variance. <br />The City Planner reported that the applicant is suggesting that the <br />following are all unique conditions that create practical difficulties: <br />Existing Grade (steep slopes along the side yards which make <br />storage of material on the driveway or in the rear yard <br />impractical); <br />Existing Tree Cover (proposed location in northeast corner of lot is <br />situated such that existing trees and slopes screen the <br />storage area better than if located in the rear of home); <br />Configuration of Lot (front yard faces rear lot lines of property to <br />north, while rear yard is more exposed to other adjacent <br />parcels creating a situation where storage of material in rear <br />yard, while meeting Code requirement, would be less <br />visually attractive to most surrounding preperty owners). <br />The Planner indicated that while the proposed storage location in the front <br />yard is more convenient to the applicant's use, storage in the rear yard is <br />not impossible. Under previous variance language of hardship and <br />necessity, the application would have been required to show it was nearly <br />impossible to use the property without a variance. The new variance <br />standards are less restrictive, permitting the city to make judgments as to <br />which alternative is more reasonable. <br />The Planner stated that staff agrees that the Variance is justified as the <br />combination of slopes, tree cover, and configuration of the property create <br />conditions that are unique. <br />The Planner reported that the applicant contacted hint with comments <br />relative to the planning report recommendations. In the first <br />recommendation, the Planner noted that he is recommending no more than <br />two cords of wood. The applicant informed him that he heats his home <br />with wood and is asking for amaximum of 6 cords. The second' <br />- 5 - <br />20 <br />