Laserfiche WebLink
2U)ning File #1924 <br />AfMil 13. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Size Variance <br />Again, please rcMew applicant ’s letter of request for an oversize accessory structure footprint <br />area variance. Please recall that the oversized accessory structure ordinance was adopted in an <br />attempt to match the size and square footage of accessory structures to the overall size of the lot. <br />Is the 200 s.f. variance justified in this case by certain factors such as adequacy of screening, <br />relativelv modest height, and setbacks in excess of those required.^ Is there adequate hardship <br />and/or other justification to support the granting of a size variance? <br />The property owner is required to execute an ovenized accessory structure covenant which <br />would require removal of the oversized structure if the propeny is ever subdivided. Subdivision <br />is not feasible under the current 2 acre staixlards since the lot is less than 4 acres in area, hence <br />tlie covenant conditions would only come into play if a future lot line rearrangement resulted in <br />the property decreasing in size. <br />Staff has reviewed the proposed structure height which would be approximately 15 at the peak <br />using the proposed 4:12 pitch. This height would appear to equal but not exceed the height of <br />the existing house. The structure would be approximately as wide and about 3/4 of the length <br />of the existing house. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission has a number of options uicluding: <br />1 Approval as proposed. <br />2. Approve location variance only <br />3. Approve size variance only. <br />4. Deny both requests. <br />5.Table. <br />6.Other. <br />Planning Commission should specify the hardships and justification for any recommendation of <br />approval, and specify any further conditions you feel are appropriate.