Laserfiche WebLink
:4- �. c�t o� oR,oNo <br /> � <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � <br /> �, NO. 2415 <br /> • � • • <br /> 5. Applicant has cited in an addendum included with the current <br /> application, referenced as Exhibit A, the following reasons why he <br /> feels the hardcover scheduled for removal must remain: <br /> a) Applicant's builder advised that applicant could seek an <br /> amendment of the original conditions of the approving resolution <br /> at some point in the future and that after he had lived in the <br /> house for a year he realized how essential those improvements <br /> were to the use and enjoyment of the house. <br /> Applicant had received all notices of the Planning Commission and <br /> Council action after each meeting and was fully aware of the <br /> • intent of the City regarding this application. Applicant had <br /> signed off on the resolution agreeing to the removal of the_ <br /> specific areas of hardcover. <br /> b) Applicant claims that it would create a safety hazard to <br /> remove the additional paved area adjacent to Shadywood Road and <br /> that it provides additional on-site parking. <br /> The City has provided the applicant with a turn-around on his <br /> property, thereby eliminating the need to back out onto Shadywood <br /> Road. Additional parking for visitors or guests can be provided <br /> within the grassed areas of the property. <br /> c) Applicant contends that the detached garage is desparately <br /> needed for storage and that it must remain. <br /> Once again, it would appear �that the applicant entered into an <br /> agreement with the City without any serious thought as to the <br /> consequences. A larger, improved house and the detached garage <br /> would create a cluttered and densely developed look in comparing <br /> current pattern of development within the neighborhood. <br /> d) Applicant claims the bulk-head door/storm door shelter is <br /> needed for emergency access to the house and for certain repair <br /> and maintenance activities. This structure consists of 41 s.f. <br /> • of hardcover. The applicant advises that 52 s.f. of hardcover <br /> approved for new construction was never realized. <br /> 6. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1988, the <br /> Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the current app lication <br /> based on the following findings: <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br />