Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />Staff indicated construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would <br />require a separate, second driveway with access via 62nd street. Staff stated City Code did not <br />preclude construction of such a second driveway. There were, however, easement issues. Staff <br />stated there was an eighty -five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side <br />of 62nd Street. The proposed garage did not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross <br />the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the <br />current road right -of -way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements <br />to 62nd Street. <br />Staff explained Mr. Poser stated that he wanted to locate the garage on the northern part of the <br />property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system was located on the <br />southern part of the property and precludes there, and 2) there was less traffic on 62nd Street. <br />Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning '. inanc hat the City shall <br />make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequen <br />Staff recommended denying the variance for the reasons out nom.: the `a..f's report. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. <br />Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, stated he was .05 <br />wanted to do, which was the equivalent of 5 fe <br />violation on the present shed he had on his a- op <br />not informed at that time he would be i <br />ort from being allowed to do what he <br />he was not sure why there was a <br />tated he had obtained a permit and was <br />Chair Schaps asked if he had give - ho 4 +, to eliminating one of the structures. Mr. Poser <br />replied he could do that, but at t e = e di ' not know when he applied that he was in <br />violation. <br />Chair Schaps indicated the Or <br />short. Mr. Corson agr <br />support this variance. <br />c es were there for a purpose, even if he was only .05 acres <br />d they did need to draw the line somewhere, and he could not <br />Mr. Zych stated Mr. Pos:'"' was only .05 acres short from being able to put as many buildings as <br />he wanted to on the property. He stated the neighbors had indicated it was okay with them, so he <br />did not see why they did not grant the request. Mr. Corson replied that the line needed to be <br />drawn somewhere and the rules were there for a purpose. He expressed concern about setting <br />precedence if this was granted. <br />Mr. Corson stated Mr. Poser did not have a unique hardship and therefore, did not qualify for this <br />variance. <br />Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that he already had an accessory building. Mr. Poser stated he <br />wanted to put the garage up to store additional trailers in. He stated the shed could not be seen <br />from any of his neighbors' yards. <br />Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinance allowed Mr. Poser to have a structure, but not the number <br />he wanted or the size he wanted. <br />