PL MINUTES 10191999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes • October 19, 1999 Page 3 1 Hanson asked Mr. and Mrs. Kittelson if they had built the shed on the property. Mr. Kittelson 2 said that the shed was located on the property when the home was purchased, but that the shed 3 would be torn down once the new garage was built. 4 Tillman confirmed that she had visited the property and that the existing garage was in disrepair. 5 Horst reiterated that he believed that the Planning Commission should review the issue of imper- 6 vious surfaces and how the City perceives such surfaces. In other words, the Commission should 7 review the rules and regulations governing construction of a deck and other surfaces in the City, 8 and issue some possible recommendations to the City Council for changes totheexisting Code. 9 Tillman suggested the possibility of implementing changes for smaller lots in the City. 10 Hanson inquired about the need for a garage setback. Bergstrom clarified that the current garage 11 is nonconforming with the Code relating to setback space, and any replacement structure must be 12 built per the existing Code standards, or obtain a variance. 13 Hanson requested clarification of the difference between Mr. and Mrs. Kittelson's request for a 14 variance, and the prior request of Mr. and Mrs. Doolan for a variance to construct decking. 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes responded that the difference is that Mr. and Mrs. Kittelson are requesting Y P Q g 16 permission to construct a two-car garage and there is evidence of a hardship involved. Also,the 17 City supports the use of garages so that vehicles and lawn equipment could be stored inside 18 rather than outside on the property. This also supports the City's code enforcement policy that 19 strives to keep properties looking neat and well kept. 20 Horst mentioned that the Planning Commission is continuing to search for a solution that would 21 assist Mr. and Mrs. Doolan with their plans for decking. 22 Horst recommended that the Commission research the background of reasoning behind the 35% 23 lot coverage limitation and the manner in which other cities handle similar situations. Horst be- 24 lieved that additional situations would arise in the future regarding lot coverage issues and he 25 would suggest resolving some of these issues before that time. 26 Stille directed the Commission's attention to Mr. and Mrs. Kittelson's sketch of proposed plans. 27 He commented on the location of the driveway in relation to the flower bed. Stille inquired 28 about the possibility of the driveway being more narrowly paved, thus slightly alleviating the 29 impervious surface issue. Mr. Kittelson agreed that suggestion would be a possible compromise 30 and discussed options regarding planting additional vegetation. Horst inquired about the surface of the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Kittelson responded that the 02 neighbor's driveway is concrete and the home has an attached single-car garage.