Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Trottier posed 2 questions: <br /> 1. Can density be transferred across zones? <br /> 2. Open space calculations—make concessions? <br /> A straw vote was taken: <br /> 1. Adhere to zoning classification—3. <br /> 2. More open space—2. <br /> 3. Spread density over both zones— 1. <br /> Mr. Marohn stated that in the TR the open space is 30% and could possibly go up. <br /> Duplexes may need to be used. If the Forsberg property were included in the plat and not <br /> developed, the plat would have 40% open space. Water and sewer are essential. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Mark Hallan,to table. All members <br /> voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> APPLICANT: Kenneth Mlaskoch. <br /> Applicant requests a Variance to Exceed Accessory Structure Size Limit. <br /> Applicant was present. Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. He also asked the <br /> Planning Commission not to focus on the After-The-Fact Permit or past violations. <br /> Mr. Mlaskoch explained that he had applied for a permit for his new home and attached <br /> garage. Staff had made an error in computing the permit fee for the basement which cost <br /> him additional fees. He also built a porch which he was charged an after-the-fact fee. <br /> The sewer needed to be extended with the additional bedrooms and was designed <br /> incorrectly which also cost him additional fees. When questioned, he stated that he knew <br /> he needed a permit to construct the new shed. The shed does not have a cement floor; it <br /> is a wood floor and the shed sits on approximately 6 blocks. <br /> Our old ordinance had a 2,000 sq. ft. required limit. We discussed 1,280 sq. ft. maximum <br /> at our ordinance meetings, but raised it to 2,000 sq. ft. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Mark Hallan,to deny the variance, <br /> based on the following findings of fact: <br /> 1. Strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not create an undue hardship, since <br /> the property already contains a 1,920-square-foot accessory structure along with a <br /> 1,764-square-foot attached garage. The property owner already has storage space <br /> on the property along with a dwelling. <br /> 2. Strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not be impractical because there are <br /> not any characteristics of the property, such as lot size, shape, or topography, that <br /> have limited development and construction on this property. <br /> Planning Commission 2 <br /> January 19, 2006 <br />