Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />Page 4 <br />November 21, 1996 <br />Zoning File #2192 Roben and Wendv Beuiler 1331 North Arm Drive <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Please refer to Exhibit B, hardships are reviewed as follows; <br />1 The property is served with sewer <br />2. There is no additional land available to expand the lot width of property <br />3 . No other variances are required as a result of this improvement <br />4.The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified <br />of the proposed improvement <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />Three of the four members of the Planning Commission approved the lot width variance for <br />the Robert Beutlers allowing construction of a new principal structure on property located at <br />1331 North Arm Drive based on the hardships set forth above The Planning Commission also <br />approved of the use of the existing principal structure as a future accessory structure with <br />expanded living space They asked that the plumbing fixtures and plumbing within the kitchen <br />be removed along with the shower and tub frxtures within the bathroom They asked that only <br />a sink and stool remain in the bathroom. <br />Approval of the application was based on the following conditions: <br />1. <br />2. <br />Applicants' contractor to provide as-builts of sewer line serving new residence and <br />proposed accessor>’ structure with living space The existing well on property shall <br />serve both the new residence and (he converted accessory structure. <br />Applicants to execute restrictive covenant limiting use of accessory structure with <br />expanded living area. Structure can never be converted to an mdependent residential <br />unit for either rental/guest house or guest apartment use. <br />The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the <br />Planning Commission’s recommendation. The minority opinion of one had no problem with <br />the issue of the lot width variance but was concerned with the use of the existing residence <br />to be converted to an accessory structure with expanded living space The member noted the <br />lack of clarity in the code concerning accessory structures with expanded living space and <br />noted the difficulty of enforcing the restrictive covenant. There was also the issue of precedent <br />setting and the difficulty of denying a future request.