PL PACKET 09182012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 2 2 Interim City Planner Corkle explained the property owners would like to add a shed next to their 3 garage located on the southern end of the property, noting the house is oriented toward Stinson 4 Boulevard. She stated the proposed shed is angled due to trees in the area and the property 5 owners are trying to avoid impacting these trees. She stated the property owners are requesting a 6 variance for an accessory structure in the front yard and the Zoning Code requires all accessory 7 structures to be located in the rear yard; however, the property is oriented in such a way that an 8 accessory structure cannot be placed in the rear yard. She presented several photographs of the 9 property stating that it would be difficult for the property owners to meet the setback 10 requirements due to the existing garage and the proposed shed would be placed partially in the 11 front and side yard. She indicated the orientation of the home does not allow for an accessory 12 structure in the rear yard, the garage is currently used for storage of equipment, and the proposed 13 shed would be used for storage and would allow a vehicle to be parked in the garage. She 14 advised that other options for the property owner that would not require a variance include 15 expanding the existing garage or adding on to the home to provide the desired storage space. 16 She noted that expanding the garage would require modification to the recently constructed art 17 studio and the owners believe their best avenue is a variance from the front yard setback. 18 19 Chair Heinis asked if the property owners would need a variance if the house faced the street to 20 the north and the side yard faced Stinson Boulevard. 21 22 Interim City Planner Corkle replied that if the house was oriented toward 27h Avenue, the 23 proposed shed would be located in the back yard. She noted the City would also need to look at 24 the rear yard setback but felt it was likely the property owners would have room to put the 25 proposed shed in this location if the house was oriented differently. 26 27 Ms. Nina Guertin and Ms. Patti LaBossiere appeared before the Planning Commission. 28 29 Commissioner Niccum requested information about materials to be used on the shed and asked if 30 the materials would be similar to the art studio. He also asked about the location of the door. 31 32 Ms. LaBossiere stated the proposed shed will look similar to the art studio and will include cedar 33 shakes. She stated the shed will have two doors and one door will face north and the other door 34 will face east toward the house. 35 36 Commissioner Chaput requested that the property owners provide a detailed sketch of the shed 37 showing the placement of the doors and showing the proposed cedar shakes at the public hearing. 38 39 Commissioner Niccum requested that the property owners also show the distances from the 40 street and property line to the fence and then from the fence to the proposed shed to depict how 41 far the proposed shed is from the side yard. 42 43 Commissioner Chaput requested information about other options considered by the owners. 44 45 Ms. Guertin stated they considered placing the shed on the east side against the fence line but 46 that would mean you would see the 20' section of the shed from the street and they felt this