Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3111 2260 Fox Street <br /> May 12,2005 <br /> - Page 5 <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicants have provided a hardship statemenfi, �nd should also be asked for their testimony <br /> regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> Ii1"coirsi�eriag applicrrCio�rs for naririi�ce, t/�e'Plai«:i��g Coiiriiiissioii slialC co�rsider fl�e effecf of tTie proposed <br /> variafice upuit t1�e /tealtlr, safet�� and welfare of t{re cn��rn�iu�ity, eiisting «�i�l aftticipated traffic conditioiis, <br /> ligl�t aud air, drurger of fire, risk to t/re public saf'ety, rrnd tJie ef'fect u�i valires of pruperty iii tl�e surroundii�g <br /> rrrea. T/ie Plair�ring Co�nmissio�i s/tnll consider YLL'O/!t/)lG'/llI[/1�' a��pi•ovrrl for nariairces fi•onr. tlie literal <br /> pro>>isio�is of t/re Zo�eiiig Code i�� instauces wliere tl�eir strict e�rf'orceme�tt ti��ould cnuse ui�due /tardship <br /> because of circrrfrrstairces ru�ique to tl�e ieedivirliral pro��erty ander coi�siderutior�, and shall recon:mend <br /> upprovul ouly ►nhen it is denro�istrated that sucl� actiof�s fnill be in ke�pifig witl: tlie spi��it uird intent of t/ie <br /> Oronu Zoning Code. <br /> Staff finds that placement of a standard size (< 1000 s.f.) accessory building ineeting all <br /> required location standards is feasible on the property, just NE of the existing house at the <br /> end of the driveway apron, between the pool and the septic sites. The difficulty comes iri <br /> when the accessory building becomes oversize and greater setback requirements come uito <br /> play, and the location of septic sites aiid the pool become limiting factors. <br /> Summary of Issues for Consideration <br /> l. Is there a suitable hardship justifying a variance for the size of the building in excess <br /> of that nornlally allowed? <br /> 2. Are tlle- visual impacts of the building significant? How will they impact tlie <br /> surrounding neighborhood? Does tlle partial undergrounding of the structure <br /> suitably limit any negative visual impacts? <br /> 3. Are there other impacts of this oversized building being allowed, for now ar for the <br /> filture, fihat should be addressed? <br /> 4. Are lhere any negative impacts associated with the request for plumUing, as long as <br /> the standard covenants are agreed to? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues with tliis proposed construction? <br />