2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

�ct6�ack i��or� 77��1 LQng L�lc� Rc�ad �kpril 2; �0�3 i'ag� � f. The variance would nof be maferially defrimental to fhe purpose of this Ti�le or to other properfy in fhe same zone. Granfiing a variance to allow the strucfure to remain within the setback could be viewed as mafierially detrimental to fhe purpose and intent of the zoning code. I# is hard to imagine a situatian where ihe Pfanning Commission would have appraved �his request had th� setback been flagged prior to consfructior�. Staff has naf received any feedback fro� neighbors regarding this request. g. The proposed variance wi!! not impair an adequate supply of light and air �o adjaceni property or substantia!!y increase fhe congestion of ihe public sfreets or increase the dangeY of frre or endanger fh� public safety or subs�antially diminish or impair pYOperfy values within fhe neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in �ny of the above-cited adverse effecfis. � All af the criteria, as i�dica�ed above, r�eed fp be s�tisfied to justify the granting the variance. Certainly the fac# thai fhe applicanf was issued a building permifi in good faifh does support the requirement that the excepfianal ar exfraordir�ary condifiion nat be caused by the _ �ppficant. But does fihat error necessitate approvai of fhe variance? No. The fact thaf the � Citv erred in ifis issuance of the buildinq permif even qiven the maqnifiude of the oversiqht, does not in itself obli afe variance a roval. The Pianning Commission needs fo de#ermine whether the City's error in itseff is sufficient justification to grant the variance. , . .. Affer holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the builder, the proper[y owner ar�d affec#ed neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions re[ated to the request: 1. Approve the requested variance with stipulations requiring appiication of a conditional use permit for the oversized garage anri a variance for �ccessory space beyond ihe 1,80Ci square foot maximum. Furfhermore, � stipulaiion should be included which indicafies tha# if the strucfi�re is ever damaged or destcoyed, the original prevailir�g setback sha11 apply to any reconstruction. Reso[ufion "A" is atfached for this option. 2. Deny �he requested variance and require that 11 feef be removed from ihe firont of the garage io satisfy the pr�vailing 4-1-foot setback. �f th� Commission determine� this optior� is appropriate, the applicanfs would h�ve ihe right �o appeal the Commission's decision and ; su�h an appeal would be heard by the City Council on April 14, 2003. Resofution "�" is af�ached for this optior�.