PL PACKET 10222018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2018 Page 6 Commissioner Neumann referred to the picture and Ms. Friend stated the picture is already what 1 is constructed on the house. Ms. Friend stated she wants the platform deck to be lower than the 2 existing deck. 3 4 Chair Papatola stated the Commission can act on the appeal but that wouldn’t get any closer to 5 clarity. He suggested this be sent back to staff to get some clarity on the Ordinance for this case 6 and any future case. He asked if staff’s recommendation is followed to bring back a draft 7 Ordinance, how quickly could that be done. Ms. Perdu stated in one or two months a draft could 8 be brought before the Commission. Staff recommends to deny the appeal. Ms. Friend asked the 9 Commission to consider her platform deck be 5 feet from the steps of her existing deck. 10 11 Commissioner Larson stated since a secondary structure cannot be within five feet of the primary 12 structure it seems that the existing deck which is part of the primary structure is interpreted in a 13 different way so that a secondary structure could come up to it. Ms. Perdu references eves. Ms. 14 Friend stated they would be more than five feet from the eves. He believes the existing deck is 15 the break from the primary structure. 16 17 Chair Papatola stated if the appeal is approved would that provide the property owner any 18 clarification or would she need to come back again to the Commission. He would rather create 19 something consistent. Ms. Perdu stated the appeal would need to be approved with wording on 20 the interpretation of the existing Code. This would give Ms. Friend the flexibility the build the 21 deck she wants. 22 23 Commissioner Socha asked Ms. Friend or she spoke with Ms. Rothstein about bring the variance 24 request back for review. Ms. Friend stated she was told an administrative appeal was the next 25 step. Ms. Friend stated she would visit a variance but she was in hopes that this would be 26 resolved differently. 27 28 Commissioner Neumann stated there is a variety of different types of lots within the City. There 29 are elders in the community that want to construct different type of structures. She commends 30 Ms. Friend for coming back with the appeal. She suggested the appeal be granted and then staff 31 be directed to draft the ordinance. Ms. Perdu stated there is a risk that during the time between 32 granting the appeal and the new ordinance being adopted, the interpretation would apply to all 33 properties within the City requesting decks. 34 35 Commissioner Kalar asked if another option is to grant the appeal and ask for the deck to fall 36 under the ordinance. Ms. Perdu stated the motion would need to include the interpretation that 37 would make Ms. Friend’s deck allowable under the current ordinance before the new ordinance 38 would be written. 39 40 Commissioner Socha stated her personal feeling is that Ms. Friend does have a bad situation and 41 it does not make sense to apply the current ordinance. She suggested the variance be reviewed 42 again. She suggested the appeal be denied and revive the request for variance. 43 44 Chair Papatola stated that would not be in order due to public notification. Ms. Friend stated she 45 believes there would be time but City Manager Casey stated there would not be time for 46