Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Mayor and City Council Page 2 <br />August 19, 1996 <br /> <br />· I acre to 2.5 acres are allowed 2,500 square feet of accessory structure <br /> area. <br />· >2.5 acres to 5.0 acres are allowed 3,000 square feet of accessory structure <br /> area. <br /> <br />This parcel is 2.5 acres and is allowed 2,500 square feet of accessory structure <br />area. The applicant has proposed 2,520 square feet of accessory structure <br />area. This is 20 square feet more than is allowed by the newly amended <br />ordinance. Under the old ordinance, the applicant would only have been <br />allowed 2,000 square feet of accessory structure area. Therefore, in staffs <br />opinion, there is no hardship in limiting the applicant to 2,500 square feet of <br />accessory structure area. The applicant will need to reduce the size of the <br />proposed pole barn by at least 20 square feet. <br /> <br />The applicant is limited as to where the storage building may be placed <br />because the land drops off to the west of the existing yard barn, and would <br />require a significant amount of fill in order to create a suitable building site. <br />The drain field is located in the only fiat part of the property. Requiring the <br />pole building to meet the required setbacks will result in the loss of one or <br />two mature trees, as well as a significant amount of fill. In the past, the <br />Planning Commission and City Council have used tree preservation as a <br />finding in granting a variance. <br /> <br />The yard barn is located in the proposed location of the new storage shed, and <br />will be moved to the rear of the property near the garden. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance <br />request to allow a 10 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback, <br />and denial of the variance request to exceed the maximum accessory <br />structure area by 20 square feet, based on the following findings and <br />conditions: <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />1) The literal enforcement of the ordinance setback requirements would <br /> cause undue hardship because the applicant would not be able to meet <br /> setbacks for the pole building without adding a significant amount of <br /> fill or cutting down mature oak trees. <br />2) That the hardship caused by the topography of the site, which makes it <br /> difficult to contract a building at the setback line, due to the drop-off, <br /> which would require extensive fill and the loss of several mature trees. <br /> <br />s:\planning\kendra\v96-08.doc <br /> <br /> <br />