Laserfiche WebLink
rator <br />to structure <br />not allow him <br />presented by <br />L’he applicant <br />space above, <br />nt area with <br />ontains a 3- <br />e loft above <br />for the two <br />This would <br />the Planning <br />east on the <br />rees, which <br />e the square <br />pace for his <br />is stored in <br />e requested <br />floor area, <br />making the <br />sntial space <br />te when the <br />ng unit. <br />staff and <br />bion. As of <br />: % <br />■*STAFF RBCONMBHDATION:«4 4-k infoJ^n'ation from the applicant, staff would concurWith the Planning Commission recommendation. In the memo to the PlanningCommission, staff suggested that if Planning Commission wished to approve some proposal for the site, the following criteria would be appropriate: <br />1. No increase above the existing 29.9% hardcover (75-250'). <br />2. Maintain 10' required rear lot-line setback. <br />3. Maintain 10' required setback from the house and existing detached <br />garage unless a hardship is shown. <br />4. Reduce size to meet ),000 s.f. maximum floor area requirement. <br />5. Applicant should be urged to revise his proposal to reduce the <br />impact of the structure on the property. <br />.applicant or his agent brings a revised proposal to the Council <br />meeting. Council has the option to review that proposal and take what ever <br />action may be approporiate, or Council may wish to refer that proposal to <br />the Planning Commission. If referral to the Planning Commission does <br />occur. It would be reviewed at the October 3rd meeting. If no further <br />proposal IS forthcoming and Council takes action on the current proposal, a <br />resolution reflecting that action will be presented to Council at your next <br />I