PL PACKET 11162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 19, 2021 Page 2 1 height in side and rear yards (behind the front building setback line), and 4 feet in front yards. 2 The applicant is proposing to extend the fence toward the Maplewood Drive property line, 3 into the setback area that requires a height of no more than 4 feet, but build it at the 6-foot 4 height. That encroachment of a 6-foot-high fence requires approval of a variance. 5 6 Since the original application, the applicant has further refined the request, limited the 7 proposed fence encroachment, and added new materials that clarify the proposal for the 8 variance. In the initial review, the proposed encroachment would have been to within a few 9 feet of the front property line. That has now changed, with a proposed encroachment of 10 approximately 8 feet into the required setback. 11 12 Mr. Grittman reviewed the variance criteria. The packet provided to the Commission included 13 a number of photographs submitted by the applicant. 14 15 In reviewing the proposed improvements against the ordinance requirements for lot 16 development, and the considerations for variance, staff has changed its original 17 recommendations to approval of the fence height encroachment as newly proposed. 18 19 Staff has reviewed for height, use, other setbacks and impervious surface on the lot, given the 20 new pool, pool deck, and existing rear yard shed. The applicant has reduced the size of the 21 proposed pool, and will be removing the existing shed to meet the impervious surface 22 standards of the code. 23 24 Staff recommends approval of the requested (and amended) front yard fence height 25 encroachment variance at 3501 Maplewood Drive based on the following findings: 26 A.27 The applicant is able to construct a swimming pool, pool deck, and privacy fencing within 28 the proposed 8-foot setback encroachment. B.29 A pool of the size, along with any associated construction such as a pool deck, that would 30 encroach into the front yard will require additional verification of compliance with the 31 terms of the City’s impervious surface maximum for residential lots of this size. C.32 The applicant can show unique conditions on the property that interfere with putting the 33 property to a reasonable residential use, with reasonable use being defined in this case as 34 the significant encroachments towards Maplewood Drive that exist on most of the 35 surrounding properties to the east and west. D.36 Circumstances that would lead to variance approval are the result of the actions of prior 37 owners, and those owners in the neighborhood, and not the actions of the applicant. 38 39 Mr. Grittman offered 3 alternative actions to the Planning Commission. 40 41 Commissioner Morita asked about the requirement for having a pool being a 6-foot fence and 42 Mr. Grittman stated it is. The applicant’s intent is to surround the pool with a 6-foot fence. 43 The encroachment variance is what is being considered. 44 45 Commissioner Rude asked how far east-west the encroachment would fun and Mr. Grittman 46 stated it is on the west side of the house. The variance is only on the west side of the property. 47