10-15-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 4 2. As to the literal interpretation, staff would simply point out that were the Whitbecks not adding on to the back of the garage, they could build the expansion at the desired width without the need for a variance because garages 952 square feet or less do not have width limitations other than practical limitations. The secondary addition on the backside of the garage is unrelated to the variance request because it does not increase the width of the garage however because it adds “area” to the garage in excess of 952 square feet, a variance becomes necessary. The intent of the width limitation is to minimize the visual impact of a garage—in this case, the expanded garage would satisfy the spirit and intent of the requirement, thus the literal interpretation creates an unnecessary hardship. 3. The special circumstances or conditions do not result form the applicants in that the Whitbecks are simply attempting to compensate for their home’s lack of a basement by adding onto the garage. In addition, the Whitbecks drafted the garage expansion plans s o as to preserve a mature Oak tree behind the garage. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicants any special privilege in that the variance would not be required were it not for the secondary addition which does not increase the garage width. The Whitbecks’ situation is quite unique in this regard. 5. The requested five-foot variance is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate the Whitbecks’ hardship. Economic conditions do not enter into the need for a variance in this case. 6. T he variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the vicinity. As stated above, the spirit and intent of the Code is preserved and the garage expansion should not impact adjoining property owners in any way. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, would not increase the congestion of the public streets, would not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety and would not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Summary: based on the above analysis and the applicants’ response, Staff believes there is sufficient cause to establish hardship and practical difficulty to warrant approval of the variance. CUP Considerations: Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to, relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is addressed on the next page.