Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2003CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Vice- Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: *Karen Edgeton, Alan Duff, James Hadley, Tom Melander, Jeannine Churchill, Tim Burke, and David Schindler *Chair Edgeton arrived at 7:01 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, and Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Community Development Director Rick Kelly requested adding an item under Section 7 -OTHER BUSINESS - A. Consideration to Set Public Hearing for Central Village Planned Development Regulations. Chair Edgeton then called for approval of the Agenda as amended. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion carried 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Duff, to approve the minutes of September 3, 2003. The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Schindler abstained. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Brown Garage Variance -12 foot Street Side Variance fora 576 sq. ft. Garage Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Richard Brown of 305 Pinewood Drive, for a variance to the street side yard setback requirement to add onto his existing single stall garage. The home is located on a corner lot on the northeast corner of Pinewood Drive and Walnut Lane. The Zoning Code requires that the garage be set back 20 feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting to encroach into this setback by 6 feet, placing the garage 14 feet from the street side property line. Bodmer reported the applicant wishes to construct a 576 sq. ft. garage addition which, in addition to the existing single stall garage, would create an oversized two-stall garage for the home. The 16 foot wide addition would place the garage 14 feet from the property line adjacent to Walnut Lane. The applicant has stated that he needs to construct the garage on the side of the home rather than the rear of the home to ensure that the new garage does not impede the flow of drainage in his rear yard. The rear lot line on the west side of the property slopes up to a backyard fence. In addition, the side yard up to Walnut Lane also slopes up to the street. Drainage flows in a horseshoe pattern around the back of his home. The home presently has a single stall garage that is 30 feet from the Walnut Lane property line. Bodmer stated that with the street side setback at 20 feet, the petitioner could add 10 feet onto the existing garage withhout the need for a variance. The applicant has several drivers in his family and stated that he needs to construct additional garage space to enclose all of the vehicles. He also states that he has a boulevard that is 2-1/2 feet wider than typical, which will. help to offset the appearance of the encroachment. The applicant is also planning to add a kitchen addition that is 16-feet wide on to the back of his home, and as a result, would be able to use a similar sized gabel roof which would give the home a more symmetrical appearance. Bodmer stated that in order to grant a variance, the City must determine certain conditions are met. Bodmer outlined these conditions in her report to the Commission. The applicant has stated that there is a hardship due to the number of drivers he has in his family. Bodmer stated that the number of drivers in a family does not constitute a hardship for a variance and that hardships pertain to the physical condition of the land and structures. Bodmer stated that in the past, the City has granted one or two foot variances to allow the construction of a second garage stall onto an existing single car garage. In addition, Bodmer reported a 12 ft. garage addition, rather than a 16 ft. garage addition would allow the construction of a second garage stall and would require only a 2 foot variance. The issue of drainage could be addressed by reshaping the reaz yard to create swales that would direct the stormwater away from the home. Bodmer also laid out two other alternatives that are available to the applicant. One would be to construct a single stall addition onto the side of the existing garage and then add onto the back of the garages, making the garages drive-though garages. A second alternative would be to construct a detached garage behind the existing home Commissioner Churchill asked for clarification on the property line. Bodmer stated the garage is now 30 feet from the property line, the applicant can add 10 feet without a variance, but is requesting a 16 feet addition, resulting in a 6 foot variance. Commissioner Melander as if the shed on the property that is shown in staff's report meets the setback requirements. Bodmer stated that it is not in compliance and the petitioner has been informed that it needs to be relocated. The applicant, Richard Brown, addressed the Commission. Brown stated that a hardship is caused due to drainage problems on his property. The City Engineer, Jacob Fick, indicated that with any garage addition, grading would have to be done regardless. Commissioner Churchill asked the petitioner why the addition is 36 feet deep. Brown stated he will use the additional space for storage. Chair Edgeton stated that she would like the Commission to discuss altematives that do not result in a variance that are indicated in staff's report. Commissioner Churchill stated that drainage and the topography of the land is justification for a hardship, but not to the extent the petitioner is requesting. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Duff, to approve a 12 foot garage addition resulting in a 2 foot variance, based on the topography and drainage problems existing on the lot. The motion passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS A. Consideration to Set Public Hearing for Central Village Planned Development Regulations Community Development Director Rick Kelly informed the Commission that staff would like to set a public hearing for the Central Village Planned Development Regulations for the October 15, 2003 Planning Commission meting. Kelley reported a subcommittee consisting of members of the Commission, City staff, Hartford Group, and New Century, Inc., have been meeting to develop performance standards within the zones. Chair Edgeton stated that she has been adamant about not wanting to review any more proposals until the guidelines are completed. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to set a public hearing date of October 15, 2003, for the Central Village Planned Development Regulations. The motion carried 7-0. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Hadley, to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote.