Laserfiche WebLink
I!/�o�areds �I�ew Pt�nning Comnaission <br />�ieee�aber 209 2000 <br />l�egular 1!/Ieeting <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated after reviewing the <br />deiails of this variance request that �taff'has determined the cr�teria llavc <br />and recommended the Planning Commission deny the varian��`���.c�uest ' <br />Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:14 <br />Mr. Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, the applicant, adcir� <br />for not obtaining the proper permit before commencin� � <br />indicated he does have a need �or storage and would Iike <br />possible. <br />Commissioner Milier inquired as to whether the <br />Mr. Wilson indicated it had a roof and <br />Jim Bucldey, 7770 Greenwood Drive, �.�e�res <br />Wzlson's next door neighbor whose ��perty <br />Mr, Wilson spol�e concerning the,���ture a� <br />�;� <br />to remain. He indicated he dae,�,;�,�;�'�elieve; � <br />addressed the comment of sto�mtwater run�� <br />indicati g the elevat�oz� o��s property wa� 17 <br />be an rs�u'� with ntna�T: : <br />Mi-: Bt�c���y t�}en told t�: <br />claimi��g �o'�r�r� �c�r the <br />told his wi#'e �h�; C`ity l�a� <br />was thex� �p l�c�� �n�c� i�: <br />go%���e�. �Ie thcn i��d <br />tac��son should be aUle to' <br />Pa�e 4 <br />-�:>. <br />��':�� <br />f,< <br />crii,�r�� and the <br />eeri\>satisfied <br />>,:� <br />.;.� <br />�f::•: <br />� tli� �ommission and a� <br />��r�� ��tl�e struciure. He <br />���� tl�e s�nzcture if a� al� <br />sides. <br />r<;: <br />Com�zlissi'��a a�Ld indicated he is Mr. <br />; struct�z�� is «p to. He indicated he and <br />he l�a� x�t� �roblem allowing the structure <br />;ts fro� � his property in any way. He also <br />he "� c�ure falling onto l�is pz-operty <br />����hat of Mr. Wilson so there would not <br />>mrp�iy�ion he was i�oi pleased that an unidentif°ied woman <br />�:ulle:d i�to lus driveway to look at the stnzcture. Tkus woman <br />eiv�d �z� ���c�nymous complaint concerning the structure and she <br />. Bu�k��y said he was sure that this was how the whole process <br />d he did not appreciate tlie an.onymous complaint staiing "a <br />��eir accuser." <br />�ii �; <br />Chairperson lohnsor� iziquirec� as to how close to the property line s#ructures on Mr. Buckley's <br />�; ;>. <br />property were. ��,��` <br />/�"����5. <br />�mmunity DF����opment Director Ericson deferred to Mr, Bucldey who indicated his garage <br />t haG1� �:�,���S�n the property and was approximately 25 feet offthe.,property Iine. <br />.. .... ,r . ,....i'n <br />�, �r1"son noted he believed the lean-to to be one foo� off the property line not right up to <br />the pxoperty line. <br />Chairperson Petersan explained the Planning Commission is bound by state statute to strictly <br />apply the criteria listed for granting a variance. Unless an extraordinary reason can be shown <br />to allow for the variance the Planning Commission is not allowed by state law to grant the <br />variance. While the opinion of the next door neighbor does play a role, it is a minor role as <br />state law governs the process. <br />