Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br />held on March IS, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance to <br />permit an accessory structure to be located in front of a principal structure <br />based on the following findings: <br />a. The location of the house on the lot is setback much further than the <br />required SO foot setback, limiting potential locations for accessory <br />buildings. <br />b. The locations of the creek bed, septic systems and existing driveway <br />on the applicant’s property make it virtually impossible to construct an <br />accessory structure without the requested variance. <br />c. The garage can be constructed within the setbacks established by the <br />zoning district, being SO feet from the front lot line and 30 feet from <br />the side lot line. <br />d. The existing and propo.sed screening will minimize any impacts from <br />the roadway. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br />and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br />comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br />variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br />peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning <br />district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic <br />conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring <br />property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is <br />necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to <br />preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive <br />Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />J