Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/24/2024

Home

Commissioner Hunt stated that there is a process to go through, that would have identified the issues, which would then be the issue of the landowner. Commissioner Heineman agreed that this was not done in the right order, but the Commission must now decide what to do. Commissioner Anderson stated that there is a regulation that provided a maximum width for a driveway compared to a home, noting that if this is considered driveway it would not meet the requirements of that ordinance. Planning Manager Larson replied that the only violation is that it is too close to the side property line. He confirmed that the slab would be part of the driveway, but the regulation that Commissioner Anderson refers to would not apply in this situation. Commissioner Hunt asked for input from staff on the ability for a neighbor to build a fence. Planning Manager Larson commented that a variance cannot restrict what someone else can do on their property. He stated that if a fence were constructed on the property line, by the neighbor, the lean-to may look very odd. Chair Gengler asked if the letter of support from the neighbor was included in the packet. Planning Manager Larson replied that it was not attached to the case but confirmed that a letter of support was received from the neighbor. Commissioner Peters commented that he spoke with the neighbor and can vouch that the applicant and the neighbor are great friends. He stated that he believes the applicant that if the neighbor wanted to put up a fence, he would remove the structure. He stated that this structure is not out of character from the neighborhood and looks nice. He asked if there could be a sunset on the approval, should the neighbor move and the new property owner not approve of the structure. Planning Manager Larson explained that if this were approved, an encroachment agreement would also be needed for the easement, which would be recorded against the property and such language could be included in that. Commissioner VanScoy stated that the reason they are here is because the landowner did not follow the regulations the City has to prevent this type of situation from occurring. He empathized with the applicant and provided details on his situation. He recognized that this looks nice, but it does not fit the regulations, and he does not see that as rationale for approving a variance. He stated that the structure is too close to the property line. He stated that the structure would need to be rebuilt to meet the Building Code and recognized there will be cost to that, but it is the results of the applicant's action and therefore he would not support a variance. Commissioner Hunt recognized that the structure may need to be rebuilt to meet the Fire Code and asked the type of modifications that would be needed. Planning Commission/ September 26, 2024 Page 9 of 14