Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br /> <br />There being no further questions, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing noted the request was an extension of what already exists. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham agreed with Chair Klausing. The neighborhood is <br />quiet, very little traffic and was supportive. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing suggested the hardship is in the placement of the garage on <br />the site. Member Olson concurred. The garage expansion fits at this <br />location. Member Olson and Chair Klausing recommended compatible <br />materials. <br /> <br />Member Mulder noted the hardship is not necessarily connected to the site <br />or building, but the applicant. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing, Member Mulder and Member Cunningham asked that <br />accessibility and ADA be discussed by the Zoning Committee and <br />incorporated into variance hardship provisions. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke suggested that this request is a "reasonable use" of the <br />site for someone in need of this feature of the property, not the creation of <br />the current owner. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Rhody moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to <br />recommend approval of the request by Dean Sabetti for a front yard <br />setback variance to allow an addition to the existing garage on property <br />located at 2016 Beacon Street, based on the following: <br /> <br />Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a physical <br />hardship (site location) in denying the variance to allow an <br />addition to the existing garage, specifically that the applicant will <br />not be able to use the garage for its intended purpose, and that the <br />physical hardship was not created by the applicant; and, <br /> <br />Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a unique <br />(normal and reasonable use) feature to the property that would <br />justify the variance, specifically the proximately of the existing <br />garage to the street; and, <br /> <br />Whereas, there is not a reasonable alternative design that would <br />not require a variance; and, <br /> <br />Whereas, granting the variance would not significantly impact the <br />health, safety or general welfare of the community; and, <br />