Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File ;l'1971 <br />October 7, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />A. Year round use of facility. <br />B. Pluoibing ind heating. <br />Potential use for bedrooms. <br />Bathroom with shower. <br />2. <br />E. Others raised by Planning Commission. <br />Would the proposed professional use of the auxiliary structure present conflicts with <br />home occupation code? Should Greg Sargent be required to file a home occupation <br />license ai^lication? <br />Can the existing residence be used for expansion to provide additional work space area? <br />Review Exhibit K. note residence structure cannot be expanded on south and west sides <br />because of substandard setbacks. Existing improvements on east and north side of <br />residence may pose expansion problems. This matter was not addressed in applicants’ <br />addendum but in conversation with one of the applicants at my site inspection, the <br />specific character and design of existing residence was discussed. It may be impossible <br />to expand existing residence without destroying character of residence structure. <br />What should be the City ’s concerns when allowing living space expansions within <br />detached structures? What kind of controls are necessary to prevent future violations? <br />Is a code amendment needed? <br />\ii <br />Issues of Action <br />To approve as proposed; or <br />To approve as amended; or <br />To table application providing applicants additional time to consider other options. The delay <br />in this review may create problems for applicants for the garage currently being constructed.