10/09/1996 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the November 13, 1996 Planning & Zoning Board meeting and support the staff recommendation to Amend Limited Access Agreement for Apollo Drive and was seconded by Ms. Dahl. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. B. 96 -32 - Variance, Kim and John Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Ms. Wyland stated that the Sullivan's variance request was tabled at the last meeting to give staff time to work with the Sullivans on finding an alternate location for the accessory building on their property and discuss cost - sharing for the relocation with the City Council. The City Council discussed the issue at a recent work session, and the consensus is that a dangerous precedent would be set if the Council agreed to any cost - sharing. The Council advised the Sullivans to pursue a variance and submit a petition of support from affected property owners. A petition has been submitted with the signatures of all surrounding property owners except one. The neighbor who lives directly across from the structure has indicated that he has no objections but is unwilling to sign the petition. The Sullivans have requested that the accessory structure be allowed to remain in its present location which is 1.5 feet from the property line which would require a variance of 28.5 feet. Staff is recommending denial of the variance. Chair Schaps asked if any other potential solutions were discussed with the Sullivans. Ms. Wyland stated that the amount of the variance was not discussed in detail. Staff has discussed relocation of the structure between the property line and the 30 -foot setback, but agreement was not reached on an alternate location. The Council also discussed a review of the current ordinance, which staff has begun, for possible changes to require a site plan relating to accessory structures. Ms. Kim Sullivan stated that she is requesting a variance for the accessory structure to remain in its present location. She asked the Board to please keep in mind that she and her husband feel that they located the shed at the direction of City staff. The location of the structure and resulting variance request is a result of the limitations and hardships of the property. If the intent of the current ordinance is to not allow accessory structures within the 30 -foot setback because of future development and so the structure does not end up in someone else's front yard, she wants the Board to know that this neighborhood is fully developed and that ordinance provision does not apply in this case. If the shed is moved, a tree will be planted that will be larger than the shed so the sight line will not change.