Laserfiche WebLink
aos-3ia� <br /> o�to���� i�,aoos - <br /> 1'�gc 4 of'5 <br /> f�I�rdstiip St�tement <br /> Appliclnt h1s provideci a brief hardship st�.tement iii �xhibit B, �nd shottld be �slced ror <br /> aclditioilal tesfiinlony regarding the applic�tion. <br /> Hards�ii� Anal sis <br /> I�r catsiderii�g�rpp/icrrlinns.f'or ti��rrir�uce, tl�e P/rurni�rg C��r�tntiss1011 SIl(/II CO11S'%CIL'P IItB L'f.fL'L'/O.f IIIL' <br /> �JYOf70SClI 1�lll'!ll11CL'U�J011 f/JL'I1C(/IIII�Sl1fL'/)�11J7lI IVL'Ifl!/'L'O.f�flfL'COlI11fJlN1!O�� L'�fsri�rg l!/!lI(l11�lC1�7(!IG'(I <br /> lrrrffic condiliuirs, lig/r�ruid riir, r/anger of.fire, risk!o the/urb/ic snf'ei��, «�r�!Jhe ef f'ect nn i�n/rres nf. <br /> prapc�rly iit t/ie srrrror�nding«re�r. T/re P/uniliug C0I11/?IISSl01!S�lrnl!co�rsi�/er reco►�r�uert�/i�lg�rpprot�rt/ <br /> f'or vuri[ulcc�s.fronr/he/ileralprnvisioirs of 1/�e Zoiring COIIL'!/I%I15'll!/lCCS►vhere lheir sfrict <br /> enfnrcemeirl would cnuse tt�rdue hrrrdslfip becnuse of'circumslrrrrces rrrliyne 10 the inrlinirinn/ <br /> prnperty u�tder considerutiot�, «ur/sha//recomnreird«pJ�rovrr!n»/y wheir r!is rlemonslrared lhal sr�c/r <br /> aclinns will be i�r keepirr�>vit/r t/!c spirit nnd i�rlent nf't/re Oronn "Loiiin�r Cnrle. <br /> Si�ff finds the proposal as submitted does not meet ille sl�ii•it and intent ol the Zoning <br /> Ordin�nce nor does it fit withili recent approvals for detached garages on similarly <br /> substandard lofis. Wlule the Iot is sLibstandat•d in are� aud width and has considerable <br /> depth requiriiig exteiisive driveway hardcover, which niay all Ue hardships in the desire to <br /> obtaiii a g�u•age, the 32' h 25', two story garage setback 5' froili the side lot line is not <br /> reasonlble based on receni similarly approved variances. Staff would also argue that the <br /> v�u•iances approved in 2002 �u•e out of character with the current goals of the Plaiuiulg <br /> Commissiou and City Council, and the current pro�osal is for an even larger garage. <br /> Staff wotlld reconunend that the Plamung Coinlnission consider the following in asking <br /> the applicant to revise his proposal: <br /> • As the property is extensively over on hardcover, it may be more reasonable to allow <br /> oi�ly a standard 24' a 24' one story garage. <br /> • A second story garage would only be acceptable if�11 seiback requirements cot�ld be <br /> znet. <br /> • Would less hardcover be required if the garlge were designed to front-load and be <br /> located right up to tlie 30' rear yard setback (rather than ihe 35' currently proposed)? <br /> � Would less hardcover be required if the gzrage remained side-loading but was puslled <br /> to the 15' setback fi�om the street aiad 10' setback fi�om the side lot line (�ssuming the <br /> revised garage were less than 750 s.i:)? <br /> Lastly, tlus neighborhood has eYperienced drainage problems recently, wl-ucli have <br /> impacied tlle deterior�tion of the 1p�IlCilllt's exisiing g�rage, whereby a gr�ding pl�n <br /> should be reviewed Uy the City �ngineer. St�I'f would reconuzlend that the ap��licanfi's <br /> revised plan inclucie eaisting 1nd proposed grading tl�at the City Enginee.r can review aud <br /> conlment on prior to approv�l of 1ny vari�r�ces. <br /> ]:ssues for Consider�tion <br /> 1. Is au 800 s.I: two-story garage reason�ble lor this properly? <br /> 2. Are tllere aitern�live desi�ns tl�at wouid reduce hardcover lurther? <br /> 3. Is tl.ie �tcidect heigl�t of the stor��e area appropria.te at� substaild�rd setb�tcic? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerils witl�.tl�is �l�plication? <br />