Laserfiche WebLink
«03-2919 <br />July 17,2003 <br />Pages <br />10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant.” <br />Granting of the variances is not necessary to allow the applicant continued residential use <br />of the property. <br />11.“The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safely, comfort, <br />morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” <br />Granting of the OAS variance potentially will have visual impacts that the code u'flj intended <br />to avoid. <br />12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br />is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” <br />The setback variance may be supported by hardships; however, staff does not believe the <br />OAS variance is supported by a hardship. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. How will the proposed structure be used? Is there any intent to use it for a home occupation <br />or other commercial uses? <br />2.If the setback variance is granted, but the ability to attach the two structures with a <br />greenhouse type building is denied, will the close proximity of the two structures (11' apart) <br />have the same visual impacts as if they were attached? <br />3. <br />4. <br />In either case, should the building be screened from view from Highway 12? <br />Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends: <br />a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more <br />storage and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, rcc^uired setbacks, <br />sewage system location, wetlands and topography. <br />b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be <br />in conflict with the intent of the OAS ordinance. <br />c) Plarming Commission should determine whether any’ «getative screening should be required to <br />mitigate the visual impacts of allowing the structure in a location nearer the side street lot line than <br />would normally be allowed. <br />• • <br />% .