Laserfiche WebLink
nLEi0«-3011 <br />•torn.2004 <br />Hurdahip Aaalytto <br />M CMsMtriRf tfpUettihms /or ttorUuict, ikt noimbtg Commhihm skmtl CMuMff tk* ^ffrct of tko <br />frofotoi rortotKO upon tkt koottk, tpfety omi wo^ort oftkt comommUf, txhtl^ omi oittkipotod tro/fk <br />tomdUoHh U^tntdoir, dongoref/in, rbk to tkoptMkt4tfid)f, oodtke^oetoii rohmofproponpktOto <br />MfTMMMttif orto. Tkt rtommlmg CommbtlMi tkoUeomsIdtr ncommtHdkig opprovot for tforloitcttfrom <br />diolkorotprovttlomt tf tkt Zoning Code In kutonett tutert tkek ttrkt emfortememt womtd cmott tmdnt <br />kmdAlp keaaue efdrauimoiietM onlgme to ike bidMdmolproptrtf on4er cotaUtrodoo, end %koU <br />end ^promlontpwkemkltdemonttroltdtkoi sock oetlomt wU! be to keeping witk tketpMtomdreeoi <br />kdtnitfikeOromo Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that due to the existing vegetation, the orientation of the existing driveway and <br />the location of wetlands to the rear of the propeity there is a hardship to justify granting the <br />front yard setback variance as well as the variance to be nearer the ftont lot line than the <br />principle structure. Should the applicants be required to meet the 100* front yard setback <br />significant tree removal would be needed. There is an existing clearing at die location <br />where the detached garage is proposed and little vegetation removal would be required. <br />Issaes for Consideration <br />Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Rccoaiaicndalioa <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Because the site plan is <br />not a certified survey, a survey will be required before this is presented to Council for final <br />action. <br />lOtoi,bOL-^.