PC 031908 - Laserfiche WebLink

He stated that on January 25, 2008, he appealed the Zoning Administrator’s approval in writing, and requested a complete review by the Planning Commission. He believed that the variance application was deficient, and that the findings of the Zoning Department were flawed. He stated that no scale drawings had been submitted by the applicants, nor were elevation drawings even though the structures appeared to be in excess of 10 feet in height. He noted that the sketch submitted with the application contained many erroneous dimensions. He believed the applicants had made poor choices over the past three years, and that they appeared to ignore correspondence from the City for two years. He added that large judgments had also been levied against them. With respect to Finding 1, he disagreed with staff’s contention that the property’s location and configuration was unique, and noted that there were many corner lots with sound walls in their development. He added that most of the corner lots were 72 feet wide, and noted that the sound wall actually gave the applicants an additional 10 feet of side/rear yard space. He disagreed with staff’s assessment that the applicants were denied property uses enjoyed by other residents. With respect to Finding 2, Mr. Esser disagreed with staff’s statement that the site was unique, and the lot substandard. He noted that at 8,500 square feet, the subject lot was one of the largest in the development. He added that the minimum lot size in the development was 6,5000 square feet, and that this lot was considerably larger than the minimum. He did not believe this approval was consistent with previous approvals, as stated by staff. In the cases cited, the residents in question received a variance to move the side yard fence closer to the street. With respect to Finding 3, he noted that the accessory structures were unusually tall, and produced light, open space and other visual impacts. He did not believe that any of the three findings could be made, and requested that his appeal of the approval be granted. Rich and Lori Lortz, applicants, stated that they disagreed with Mr. Esser’s assessment of the Zoning Administrator’s approval. They distributed a packet of photographs displayed Mr. Esser’s shed and detailing tent as being visible over their shared fence. The photographs also showed other neighbors’ sheds being visible from Mr. Esser’s house, as well as a 25-foot-long trailer. Victoria Lenz spoke in support of the applicants, and believed that this matter could have been resolved without such an extension use of time and City resources. She did not object to the shed or the setback. Mr. Esser reiterated his objection to the shed and the approval by the Zoning Administrator. He believed that the approval should be overturned, and requested that his appeal be upheld. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners discussed the various issues before them and questioned staff as to the process, requirements, and regulations related to constructing or installation of accessory structures. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 19, 2008 Page 3 of 8