Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />I <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br />held on September 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance to <br />permit the accessory building to be located closer to the street or front lot <br />line than the principal residence, and denial of the side yard setback and <br />oversized building request, based on the following findings: <br />a. The constraints of the required wetland and septic setbacks. <br />b. The street or front lot line of the property does not function as the front <br />of the lot. <br />c. The platted street right-of-way is currently undeveloped and isn’t <br />foreseeable to develop in the future. <br />d. The lot is secluded by wetlands to the west and railroad property to the <br />north. <br />c. The lot is heavily wooded. <br />f. A tree line exists to the east providing screening to the most alTected <br />neighbor. <br />g. If a building 1,200 s.f. in size were constructed, the need for a north <br />side yard setback variance could be eliminated. <br />h. Construction of a 2,160 s.f. building could create the appearance of a <br />second principal residence and have the potential for unacceptable <br />uses is a residential zone, such as rental space and a home occupation. <br />The applicant revised his application prior to the October 11, 2004 City <br />Council meeting to comply with the September 20, 2004 Planning <br />Conunission recommendation. <br />The City Council finds that the revised proposal, consistent with the <br />Planning Commission recommendation is acceptable based on the finding <br />noted above. <br />Page 2 of 6