Laserfiche WebLink
4. <br />and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the foUawing; <br />findings as submiticd by the applicant: <br />A.The proposed building location requires the removal of significantly fewer <br />trees than potential conforming locations. <br />B "Plig proposed location would require no till, whereas conforming locations <br />have topography problems that would require significant amounts of fill. <br />C.The proposed location is less visible from neighboring pro^rties than <br />conforming locations, and in the proposed location the building will not <br />be visible to any existing ittighboring residences in summer or winter. <br />The proposed location requires significantly less additional driveway <br />construction than conforming locations aral thcrefou disrupts less of the <br />mature sugar maple, basswood and red oak forest on the site. <br />E.The height of the proposed building will match the height of the existing <br />house, therefore the visual intrusion of the oversized accessory structure <br />will be minimized. <br />F.The proposed footprint area of the structure will allow for inside storage <br />of existing vehicles and equipmeia currently stored outside on the property <br />and will therefore reduce tte clutter of the site. <br />G.The proposed structure will be located more than the required 50 from <br />front and side lot lines, reducing its potential impact on neighboring <br />properties. <br />H.The lot area is 0.14 acre short of the 4.01 acre area required to allow an <br />1,800 s.f. accessory structure. Under the current 2 acre zoning, the <br />property could not be subdivided to create a new building site. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />r <br />i