Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes <br />March 25, 2024 <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />----------------------------- <br /> <br />Commission. Anyone could appeal the decision, which would then go to the <br />Council. <br /> <br /> Per City Ordinance, each property is allowed one primary dwelling, there’s no <br />maximum size for this, and one accessory dwelling for a guest cottage – which <br />does have maximum sizes noted in the code. Burslie showed a rendering of the <br />proposed buildings and where on the property they’ll be located. The variance <br />request is to exceed the maximum size allowance for the guest cottage (216 sq ft <br />difference). Burslie stated there’s staff findings for both approval and denial of the <br />request. <br /> <br /> Public comment, we received an opposition letter from Tammy Peterson via <br />email, shared with all Commission members. <br /> <br />Burslie took questions from the Commission: E.Larson asked if they had three <br />separate lots originally, why couldn’t he have built a dwelling on each lot – which <br />would have avoided this hearing. Burslie stated we looked at the lots and tried to <br />configure a way in which the applicant could construct w/o the variance, the lot <br />sizes in this Urban Residential area are unique and we couldn’t make this work. <br />Burslie also stated the applicant will be installing a private septic system which <br />will be a shared septic for the primary dwelling and the guest cottage – which <br />should be on the same parcel. <br /> <br /> Commission Chair opened the floor for public comment. Travis Maikke was not in <br />attendance, but his father-in-law was who spoke on his behalf. He asked why the <br />lots were sold as they were if they weren’t buildable. Burslie stated that is a <br />question for the realtor, as we do not get into the listings of properties. These <br />were pre-existing lots, and they need to be consolidated to be as conforming as <br />possible. If one could meet the setbacks and get a septic in as well, they could <br />have built – that wasn’t the case here. Commission Goczy stated these particular <br />lots are old, they were from the time when Pequot was a railroad town, the lots <br />were intended for railroad housing. <br /> <br /> Adjacent homeowner, Andrew Allison spoke. He stated he’s for homeowners <br />being able to build what they’d like on their property, but his concern here is the <br />flooding this will create to the houses that are already there. The look of the <br />neighborhood is no longer what it was, as the applicant has removed many <br />mature trees for his project. He reiterated he’s fine with the dwellings going in, <br />but encouraged the Commission to keep a close eye on the elevation to help <br />ensure flooding will not take place. <br /> <br />Adjacent homeowner, Dean Jacobs spoke. He’s confused on the hardship <br />portion of the application. He feels the staff report makes a strong case for denial <br />of this application. The land doesn’t create a hardship, the applicant wants a <br />bigger guest house – in approving this, you’re setting a precedent. This now <br />becomes a small single-family home vs. a guest cottage. Intentions may be <br />good, but ultimately the homes (guest cottage) turn into rentals. Dean went <br />through our code and stated a guest quarters dwelling is defined as a structure <br />that is not for sale or lease. He’d like clarification on this. Burslie stated that the