3.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission May 13, 1998 Lands of Dorrian Page 2 attached site plan shows the proposed location adjacent to the pool equipment enclosure that abuts the garage. The shed is currently situated on the site, so story poles were not required. The applicant believes that the proposed location is an appropriate place for the shed, as it would not be not very visible to neighbors, and that there is no other good location on the site, due to its narrowness and the existence of other features, such as the tennis court and pool, on the site. The materials and color of the shed match those of the other structures on the site, and it blends well with the garage behind. The applicants contacted the adjacent neighbor to the south about the proposed project. The neighbor reviewed the plans with staff and indicated that they have no concerns about the request. Development and floor area compliance are not of concern. Even with the proposed addition that is also under consideration at this Planning Commission meeting, there is 6,725 square feet of development area and 3,595 square feet of floor area remaining. Variance Findings Staff has distinguished this proposal from the earlier denial in that there are special site circumstances such as the driveway easement that did not apply, and there was an obvious negative impact on a neighbor. Staff has prepared findings for approval of the variance for the Commission's consideration(Attachment 1). The findings include language that there are circumstances of the lot which unduly restrict location of the shed since the driveway easement affects the setback on the south side of the property. Approval would not constitute a special privilege not generally afforded other property owners in Town, and would not be contrary to the intent of setback provisions since there would be more than 45 feet between the structure and the closest property line. Also, there would not be an adverse visual impact on any neighbors. The request would also not conflict with the fourth required fmding, as the use (a shed) is compatible with the residential zoning. Only one fording needs to be made in the negative to deny the variance,while all four fmdings must be affirmed in order to approve the variance. The Commission may modify any of the proposed findings, if it determines that further justification of the findings is needed. If the Commission decides to deny the variance, findings for denial should be made, or the application could be continued to allow staff to prepare such finding at the direction of the Commission. Conditions may be applied to an approval, but must relate to this request only, or to ameliorate its impacts. Staff has not suggested any conditions since the exterior materials of the shed are compatible with other structures and there is already adequate landscaping along the south property line to screen the building from the • neighbor on that side. If the Commission would like to see landscaping closer to the shed to help screen it from the driveway easement or from Byrd Lane, a condition should be added to the approval. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended,Findings for Granting of Variance 2. Site plan(one page) 3. Exhibit showing lot coverage by setbacks and access easement(one page) cc: Jim&Lisa Dorrian David R. Fox 13113 Byrd Lane 144 Massol Avenue Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Los Gatos, CA 95030