Laserfiche WebLink
13. X0«4 <br />Pagt 4 of4 <br />applicant is also proposing to extend the grassed yard to the rear property line in an effort <br />to gein 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 arc 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 vimially <br />impossible to construct parking stalls that do not back into traffic, <br />a 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 w'arrani <br />variance approval. <br />BnikUBg Desifii <br />Proposed elevations are included in the packet and color renderings will be available at <br />the meeting. The qiplicant 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 recr. Two <br />different patterns of hardy board plank sivling are proposed for the rest of the facade <br />finish. The color will be a tanish-brown to compliment 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 CousIderatioB <br />1. Can the site siq)port a drive-thruugh? <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. Are there any other issues associated with this application? <br />Staff Rccommeudation <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 effon to reduce the non­ <br />conforming side street building setback requirement