Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File *1378 <br />February 15^ 1989 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />2. Applicant clains that the interior layout or floor plan of the <br />residence requires that the family room/kifchen be Installed to the <br />west side of this residence. Review Exhibit G, it is not apparent to <br />staff that the kitchen/faraily rorm addition need to be located to the <br />when the dining room is shown to the extreme east of the house. <br />Applicant or applicant's contractor should clarify. <br />It would appear there is adequate separation between the garage and <br />the principal structure to relocate the addition along the south side <br />of the residence. The location of the well and drainfield areas will <br />not impede expansion to south or east (review Exhibit H). Once again <br />we must askf has the applicant considered all available options for <br />the expansion? <br />The addition to the west may be more controlled by architectural <br />planning and design concerns for total complete structure. Planning <br />Commission may determine that this is a valid consideration. Are <br />there other accessory improvements on the south side of the house that <br />have not been noted? Staff observed a fence and plantings. There <br />were no physical/topographic features that were observed at the site <br />inspection. <br />3. The applicant claims that there would be no detriment to the <br />public health, safety or welfare if the proposed addition was <br />approved. <br />Options of Action Available to Planning Cannlsslon - <br />1. Approval based on findings and hardships noted in applicant's <br />addendum. <br />2. Denial finding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient or <br />acceptable hardships to necessitate the approval a setback variance <br />in the 5 acre sone. <br />3. Table the review of the application pending further review by <br />applicant to review all available options for the expansion of the <br />existing residence.