AgdaPkt 2000-02-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 6-1-- property to warrant the variance (unusual typography, parcel size, etc.); b) the variance would not constitute special privilege; or c) is not contrary- to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. On the June 29, 1999, the Zoning Administrator denied the variance since he could not make any of the required findings. See attached Notice of Official Action. At the Zoning Administrator meeting there were some neighbors who supported the project. No one was opposed. Attached is a petition in support of the project. The applicant is now appealing the decision to the City Council.1 Alternatives 1. Uphold the Zoning Administrator's action and thereby deny the variance. The applicant will then have to remove the two room additions, thereby just leaving the original fence and patio areas (recommendation). . " > . 'J" 2. Reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision, thereby granting the variance and allow the structures to remain in their location. However, the City Council should also require the applicant to 1) add more landscaping to better screen the additions and; 2) obtain a building permit to be sure the structures meets basic life and safety codes. 3. Reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision, thereby granting the variance but require the applicant to modify the additions so that the walls and roof of the additions better match the materials, trim, and siding, of the existing building. The applicant will also need to apply for a building permit. 'DSf\.J t/~~l~ Tom Passanisi Principal Planner Michael Church Planning and Redevelopment Manager Ed Everett City Manager Attachments:- 1) Site Plan 2) Notice of Official Action dated June 29, 1999 3) Signed Petition 1 Per the City Code an appeal must be heard within 45 days of the Zoning Administrator's decision. However, the appellant has requested several time extensions due to her travel schedule. '~'-"-'-T"