Laserfiche WebLink
#07-3267• ' <br /> _ February 15,2007 <br /> Page 3 , <br /> Hardship Analysis � , <br /> Lr co►tsitleriirg r�pplicatio�ts for vnritulce, !/re P/nnni�rg Coi�r�nission s/ra/I co�rsider tke effect of t/re proposerl <br /> varia�rce upo�r f/ie /1ealNr, safety a�1d welfare of t/re conrt�urnity, e,�:isti�rg and mrticipate�/traffrc conditiaits, <br /> 1!g/rt a�rt!air, da�rger of fire, risk!o rlre prrblic srrfety, rrud!!�e effect o�r vnlires of properry in i/ie se�rroeuuli�rg <br /> �rren. The Pla�rni�rg Conrjnlssion shnll conslder recomtnenrli�rg� approva! for vr�riances fros�i t/ee literal <br /> provlsions of 1/re Zonifrg Code in lus�ances wliere thelr sirict enforce�neat wordd crruse euedrre /rards/r�p <br /> • because of clrcrmistances iu:ique to t/re iirdivi�lr►al proper�j� ui:rler conslderatio�e, a��d slerr/l reco»rsneitrl <br /> approval o�rly wleeir it is rlemarstraterl tJiat srrclr rrctloirs will be in keepiirg wit/t t/te spirit �urr!intent of t/ee <br /> Oro�io Zon��rg Code. � <br />. The location of the garage 45' instead of the required 50' from the west lot line is due in part to � <br /> the location of the existing driveway/parking area and due to the dimensions of the garage. <br /> The parking area curb is about 74' from the lot line, and with a proposed garage setback of 5' <br /> from the curb, a garage 24' in depth encroaches 5' into the 50' setback requirement. � <br /> The impacts of this encroachment are xninimal; however, the garage could potentially be <br /> _ moved slightly nearer the parking lot to minimize or avoid this encroachment. This possibility <br /> should be explored witli the applicants as a possible alter�iative to a variance. <br /> Issues for Consideration ' <br /> 1. Are there any concerns regarding the use of the garage? <br /> 2. Is there sufficient justification presented to support the granting of a setback variance, <br /> or should the garage location be sllifted or its dimensions revised to reduce or avoid the <br /> need for a variance? <br /> 3. Is there any need for additional screening? There should be a requirement that existing <br /> screening be maintained... � <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recorrunends approval as presented. Planning Commissioii should determine whether the <br /> setback variaiice is supported aiid whetlier any additional screeniiig is required. <br /> , <br /> ' .y � • <br /> ,; <br /> :�� <br /> 'i J <br /> t� <br />