Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />N04-2993 <br />Ar>rill3,2004 <br />Page 4 of4 <br />applicant is also proposing to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effort <br />to gain some of the yard back, which in staffs view is a good way to control what is <br />happening on the site and gains more non-hardcover areas. <br />HARDSHIPS <br />This plan requires approval of a rear yard parking setback variance and a side street <br />building setback variance. Staff feels there are valid hardships to approve these variances <br />for the following reasons: <br />• The applicant’s property was reduced when the City owned parking lot was <br />constructed, whereby the drive aisle of the City owned lot makes it virtually <br />impossible to construct parking stalls that do not back into traffic. <br />• The existing building is non-conforming and the addition doesn’t increase that non­ <br />conformity. <br />The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel these are valid hardships to warrant <br />variance approval. <br />building Design <br />Proposed elevations are included in the packet and color renderings will be available at <br />the meeting. The applicant is proposing to brick the entire front of the facade with white <br />chilton stone and extend the stone along the bottom on the two sides and rear. Two <br />different patterns of hardy board plank siding are proposed for the rest of the facade <br />finish. The color will be a tanish-brown to complimenl the white stone. <br />The applicant has proposed a pitched roof on the addition to run opposite the roof line of <br />the existing house. The Planning Commission should discuss if they feel this design is <br />appropriate for a commercial building. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Can the site support a drive-through? <br />2. Should variances be granted merely to serve a drive-through? <br />3. Is the addition acceptable? Is the roof-line? <br />4. Are the exterior finishes acceptable? <br />5. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the on-site parking stalls exiting <br />into traffic? <br />6. Arc there any other issues associated with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the proposal that includes a drive-through facility as no valid hardships were <br />presented. Approval of the plan without a drive-through, which includes approval of a <br />conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, <br />with the stipulation that the 3-season porch be removed in an effort to reduce the non­ <br />conforming side street building setback requirement. <br />111 I * • <br />4 <br />r A.4 I ^ ■w d it, ¥ *1^14 lx i •