Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2106 <br />February 10,1996 <br />Page 2 <br />garage and an upper sto.y that contained living areas. The structure did not contain a kitchen or a <br />ba*h and could not function as an independent unit. Prior to the reconstruction that included a bath <br />and kitchen, applicant was required to file the conditional use permit for a guest house use. The <br />review did not consider setback variances as all work was done within the existing building envelope <br />and no structural improvements were proposed along the west side lot line. <br />Unfortunately, the applicant was advised that before he could rebuild the west wall of the structure <br />located 3.T from the west side lot line that he would have to obtain a side setback variance. This <br />has created major delays for applicant who wishes to proceed as quick as possible with the <br />restoration. Review Exhibit J, applicant has asked to be placed on tlie ne.xt agenda of the Council. <br />Review E.xhibits D and G, as applicant advises there is no plan to expand on the building envelope <br />but merely to replace the wall at the west side lot line and to replace interior walls damaged by <br />smoke. <br />Hard.ship Statement <br />Review E.xhibit E, h;irdships are as follows: <br />1. Major landscaping improvements ' completed at the time of the renovation ot the <br />structure to relocate structure to UiC east would result in the loss ot plantings and <br />retaining walls. <br />2. The movement of the structure to the east w ill result in the loss of mature trees and <br />plantings. <br />3. The structure has existed in its current location for over thirty-five years. <br />4.Steep slopes to the east and south present additional limitations for new construction <br />that would meet 10 ’ side setback. <br />5. The foundation is in excellent shape and was not damaged by the fire. <br />Options of Action <br />To either approve or deny the application as proposed. <br />ch