05-08-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1388 April 13, 1989 Page 2 of 2 4. The City Engineer was asked to review the site, given the sewer easements and draintile located under the proposed garage. That draintile is relatively small and was privately installed some time in the past. The Engineer notes that the tile could easily be removed and overland drainage accomplished along the northerly lot line.^ Both applicant and the City Engineer agreed that a future re-location of the driveway to the northwest corner of the lot near the sewer system electrical panel would create a much safer access, due to road elevations to the immediate south of the property. Discussion - The only hardship claimed by applicant is his lack of useable space in the existing house. Planning Commission has, in the past, considered a number of various ordinance revisions regarding oversized accessory buildings but no changes have been adopted yet. The question remaining to be answered is whether there exists a legitimate hardship for an oversize accessory structure. In thir case, the applicant's requested workshop and garage space could probably be accomplished in an attached structure of some sort. Another alternative would be to construct two separate buildings, a garage of just under 1,000 s.f., and a similar sized workshop building. Applicant should address his reasons why neither of these options is proposed. Staff Recoi idation - Planning Commission is advised to make a determination whether appropriate hardships exist to justify the oversized accessory structure variance. Planning Commission should also consider any appropriate conditions if approval is recommended. The following conditions would be recommended: 1. No plumbing will be allowed in the building. 2. The building may never be used as a dwelling unit. 3. The building can never be used to house a home occupation.