Laserfiche WebLink
rli'*. <br />Zoning File #1748 <br />September 10, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />Statement of Hardship <br />1.Lot width at 50' whore a required side setback is 15' would <br />limit the width of the structure to 20'. <br />2. <br />3. <br />There are no adjacent lands available for purchase. <br />Placing widest portion of structure in an east/west <br />direction has minimized tree removal and the saving of <br />mature trees within the rear yard maintaining a natural <br />visual buffer from adjacent yards. <br />4.The lower elevations to the rear or west side of the lot and <br />the house locations along North Arm Drive minimize impact of <br />setback on the adjacent properties. <br />5.Applicant has special storage needs for two large collector <br />cars and a 21' boat that can now be stored within the 25' x <br />38' structure. <br />^Planning Commission Recosmiendation <br />Planning Commission voted to deny the application (3 to 1) <br />finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient hardships <br />to support the setback request for the oversized accessory <br />structure. They also noted that the vehicles could be housed in <br />a smaller space and their position was that there should be no <br />exceptions to the ordinance for oversized accessory structure. <br />The minority opinion of one felt that the applicant had attempted <br />to address the concerns expressed by Planning Commission at the <br />®^^9lnal review which was to reduce the number and intensity of <br />variances required in the original proposal. <br />Options of Action <br />To adopt the Planning Commission denial recommendation. <br />OR <br />To approve per the findings and hardships noted above <br />Council Actii <br />To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an <br />appropriate resolution can be presented for Council action at <br />their September 28th meeting. <br />Isv