6.2. SR 12-16-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 3 Staff had replied to the condition with: "With s/gnfic~nt tree rotund, the applicant would not be deprived of right enjoyed by others." To construct the garage behind the house would require a great deal of tree removal for both the structure as well as for a driveway that would meet the allowable slopes. The applicant does not wish to remove any trees unnecessarily. In regards to the tree removal, the applicant has included a letter regarding his confusion on why the trees on his property were not a compelling condition, but later that night, the Planning Commission voted in favor of both a tree preservation and a tree ordinance, which will limit the number of trees property owners can remove. In the applicant's letter, he also referenced two variances (V 01-07 & V 02-04) that were granted. In these variances, there were conditions related to vegetation/terrain, lot size and personal physical constraints that favored permitting the variances to be granted. The minutes from both meetings and a portion of a staff report has been included. A third variance (V 02-03) was also granted with conditions related to physical abilities as well as difficult terrain, although the terrain in this case was much more extreme. Analysis In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following five conditions must be met: 1. Literal enforcemmt of the ordinance ~ cause undue hardship. Literal enforcement ~ould require the applicant to place the garage in a location that will not suit the applicant s physical needs and would not be accessible. It will also require the rem?al of a.significant amount of trees to place the structure in an area that would not reqmre a vanance. The hardship is caused by ~ conditions and cimanaanas, ~ are petuliar to the ~ ard the structure ~ and whidv are not char~stic of, or applicable to, other lands or struaum in the The hardship is caused by spedal conditions and drcumstances that are peculiar to the land. The lot size is much smaller than the minimal lot size for that zoning district. The site is heavily wooded and the house was placed dose to the road to minimize the impact of tree removal. The contour of the terrain limits the applicant's mobility. The location of the well restricts how dose the garage can be to the house. The property is a corner lot, which has two front property lines, which further restricts the "side" of the house. other ~s in the same district under the toms of this ordinane. S:kPLANNING\Case Files\V 02-08 Pertl\V02-08 CC.DOC