09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S«plmb*r 2t. IM4 Accessory Structure Area Variance Section 78-1434 (2) limits the amount of accessory buildings on lots dependant on the total area of the property. The ^yplicant’s property is 2.905 acres and therefore limited to a maximum individual accessory building size of 1.200 s.l where a 2,160 s.f. building is proposed, requiring a variance. The chart also limits the total amount of accessory buildings on a property to 2.400 s.f.. which the applicant complies with. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship documentation form in Exhibit D. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis ___________________________________________________ Ifi emnMeHug appHcoHotu for x’arianet. the PlmmiHg CaumtuioH shaU cmaUat the effect of the peapoietl tmrtamce upon the heahh, tttfety ami welfare of the eomuminity. exUrtag anil anticipated traffic eondlHons, light and air. danger of fire. ri%k to the public tafety, and the effect on %alue% of property in the wmmnding area. The nannlng Commiuion ihatl coaiider reconwtending approi-al for vatiancet from the literal proAtiont of the Zoning Code In Instances where their urict enforcement would cause undue hatd^ip because of circuantances unique to the indiridual property under consideration, and shall recommend approtal only when it is demonstrated that such oalons will be In beeping with the spirit and intent of the Orena Zoning Code. Staff finds that there arc number of issues limiting the location of an accessory building, regardless of its size. I'or example: • Piescrvatinn of an alternate septic site location and 20 ’ setback from it • Ability of proposed structure to meet 20 ’ septic setbacks from existing septic site • Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75 ’ setback requirements from wetlands • Ability to meet 35 ’ wetland setback on the .south side of the property • Access to building - potentially over existing and alternate mound locations Staff finds that these issues leave the alternate septic site and the applicant’s proposed building location the only viable locations for a building the size the applicant has proposed. Staff questions whether the alternate septic site and the applicants proposed accessory building location couldn’t be swapped. This would eliminate the need for setback variances. Staff also finds that there is some logic behind Section 78-1434 (2) which liniit.s the size of individual buildings and also total buildings. As proposed, a building 2,160 s.f. may appear as large as some principal buildings which the Ordinance is attempting to prevent. Staff acknowledges that this is a visual issue only and the site is somewhat secluded, how’ever a hardship inherent to the land is still required in order to receive a variance to this standard. Thm appears to be ample room on the property for additional, smaller accessory buildings. Staff believes that a variance for building size should not be granted merely based on whether the setbacks cannot be met. If a site meeting setbacks lends itself to support a 2,160 s.f. building, then the Planning Commission should determine whether to grant a variance. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant this variance, staff believes the only basis for approval may be the secluded nature of the lot.