Laserfiche WebLink
WM9I7 <br />August 18,2003 <br />y ‘"‘‘ “‘•’“k “d 1 O’ itiletior side yard setback' Tile <br />^d *■"'* “'O^k. and a 27.7- tear <br />Creek Setback Variance <br />TTie Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 ’ setback from a designated creek to all structures <br />7 v‘T 1'°'^’' ®ay Creek and is therefore located within <br />Itot IS within the 0-75 setback zone. Even though the creek setback isn't chanainc <br />structure massing is and a creek setback variance is required for the second sto^ <br />Hardcover Variance <br />S weS TJwZlv 77c"*r‘? a kntdcover variance is required <br />as well. Currently 325 s.f.ofstructure exists in the 0-75 ’zone. The anolicant is ^ <br />proposing to add a second stoiy which doesn’t increase the hardest ^ds Ls to <br />the 0-7o zone and results in a variance. Because the applicant is doing substantialro:rri:'-esr^ “ L,f sirrihin <br />® hardcover variance to al ow 43.75% hardcover in the <br />Infthi noiroally required. This is due to the configuration of the lot <br />and the majority of the area being within the 0-75 ’ creek setback zone ’ <br />Hardship Statement <br />® brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimonji regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />un4„ cm,Ue,.,u,«. w .ZIZITI 1?" "" <br />Staff fmds that due to the limited buildable area outside the 75' creek setback (609 5 s f 1 <br />a hardship exists which would support variance approval. Should the Planning <br />C<Mnmission consider this, a front and rear yard setback of 10’ wlv»n so* 5c * ^ j <br />side yard setback of 10'when 30' is required, font '„g° rc ' ““ “ <br />rartbltTf7T7tet^?h^P?°“‘'J!'- ■r^'«i«i"8P'oposairr«t rear . .>ard setback of 27.7 feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the 27 7’ <br />setback is appropriate or if a 30’ setback should be required. ' <br />Staff doesn't find a valid hardship which w ould justify granting a creek setback •.anance