Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 9, 2012 <br />and the Code would still allow driveway and backyard storage. Fischer <br />asked Anderson if he were contemplating any additional storage on his <br />property beyond what he is requesting under the Variance. Anderson <br />stated that he did not know what he might buy in the next five years. He <br />indicated that he would like to buy a better boat and trailer. He also <br />indicated the possibility of purchasing a camper, and suggested that he <br />would park this in his driveway. Fischer stated that his concern was that <br />another trailer or another boat may show up on the Anderson property. <br />Anderson indicated that if he purchased another trailer or another boat he <br />could put these in his back yard. The City Planner stated that that would <br />meet the ordinance. Anderson indicated that, if necessary, he could apply <br />for another Variance. <br />Murphy asked if the Commission could recommend larger plantings for <br />screening. The Planner replied that it could. Murphy suggested that 6 <br />foot arborvitaes be used for screening. Roberto agreed that requiring <br />larger plantings will screen the storage more quickly. Roberto stated that <br />he would prefer either a fence or taller plantings as screening. <br />Duray indicated that he supported the Variance given the configuration of <br />the lot as well as existing grades and tree cover. Duray felt that the <br />conditions of the Variance should be very specific, i.e. no more than 4 <br />cords of wood, a boat with trailer no more than a specified length, and 1 <br />utility trailer. <br />Murphy also suggested that screening be natural plantings a minimum of 6 <br />feet in height. Murphy pointed out that 6 -foot plantings would be the <br />equivalent of a 6 -foot high fence. Duray felt it would be expensive to <br />require 6 -foot plantings. Duray noted that the Code sets a base line of 24 <br />inches and felt it was a big jump to require 6 feet. <br />Murphy indicated that there are a certain amount of tradeoffs made in <br />return for a Variance. Murphy stated that she would not want to restrict <br />Anderson's use of his property noting the unique layout in that the <br />Roberto backyard faces the Anderson front yard. Murphy felt a fair <br />tradeoff was to require the 6 foot high plantings. <br />Anderson stated that he preferred natural plantings for screening, but was <br />concerned about the cost of 6 -foot arborvitaes. Murphy suggested the cost <br />of an arborvitae of this size was about $25. Anderson stated that he would <br />prefer pine trees for screening as he could enjoy them, but noted that this <br />would be very costly. Murphy replied that the use of pines versus <br />arborvitaes was Anderson's choice. <br />Fischer commented that if the Variance is approved it is because the City <br />is determining that the back yard is unusable for storage in the traditional <br />