02-09-2012 Planning Comm. Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2012 sense. Fischer pointed out the comment from Anderson that he may put another boat and trailer in his backyard. Fischer asked if the backyard was usable or not. The City Planner pointed out that under the revised Variance standards, the Commission must determine whether or not the proposal is a reasonable use of the property, not whether or not it is the only use. There is more flexibility under the revised standards than under the previous Variance standards where a hardship finding had to be made. Fischer felt that requiring a minimum of 6 -foot high plantings was harsh and suggested a compromise. Fischer suggested that Anderson work with planning staff to find an appropriate screening solution. Barraclough agreed that there should be screening of the storage area. He also questioned whether the Anderson backyard was usable or not, or is it just an inconvenience to bring wood into the house from the backyard. Barraclough pointed out that it is Anderson's choice to use wood to heat his home. He questioned if a Variance should be granted based on Anderson's choices. Barraclough also commented that because of this choice, the neighbor is views an unsightly wood pile. Barraclough asked if there was a middle ground that could be identified, and noted that at the end of the day this is still a Variance action. Barraclough asked if the Variance was really needed for this purpose, and pointed out that screening is a key issue. Anderson noted the grades that he would have to deal with to access his backyard. Barraclough pointed out that once in the backyard, the grades are level. Barraclough asked if it is truly inconvenient to get wood from the backyard to the front and into the garage. Hall stated that he supported denial of the Variance. He pointed out that he understands the new criteria by which Variances are judged, but pointed out that the action on the Variance is still at the City's discretion. Hall pointed out that the new Variance criteria does not require the Anderson backyard to be unusable, just that storage in the backyard causes a practical difficulty and that the proposed location in the front yard is a reasonable alternative. Hall stated that he was not convinced that the back yard is an unusable place for storage. Hall pointed out that on page 2 of the City Planner's report he indicates that one unique condition is "The configuration of the lot, in which the front yard faces the rear lot lines of property to the north, and the rear yard is more exposed to other adjacent parcels, creates a situation where storage of material in the rear yard, while meeting the code requirement, would be less visually attractive to most surrounding property owners." Hall felt that this was not established and was an assumption. Hall did not feel that the impact of storage in the back - 12 -