11-18-1996 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2198 November 13. 1996 Page 3 2.Lot coverage: Since the original site plan review last summer, applicant has scaled down the size of the building such that it may in fact meet the 15% 'lot coverage by structure' standard. Including the lot area gained by vacation of Navarre Lane, applicant indicates structural coverage will only be 13%. .Applicant has not indicated whether a structural coverage variance would be necessary if Navarre Lane is not vacated. Issue for Consideration: If a lot coverage variance is needed, is there sufficient hardship to justify granting that variance? 3.Front (street) parking setback: The R-5 district requires a 20' front yard. Section 1^ 'd, SubJ. 5(B) defines that for B districts, parking is not allowed in a required yard. .Althc -gh that code section discusses the B-1. B-2. B-3 and B-4 districts, but not the B-5 district, stafi' would argue that this is an error and that this standard was als*i intended to apply to the D-5 district. 4. .Applicant proposes parking along the fnmt line within 4'6" of that lot line where a 20' setback would be required. .Applicant’s request for this variance is to provide for all of the uses proposed for the site. i.c. accommodating the proposed building si/e and shape while pro\ iding a functional parkiitg lot and providing space for the storm water pond which serves Phase 1 (but which may ultimately not be large enough to adequately serve Phase 2). Issues for Consideration: - Will Planning Commission recommend approval for a 15.5' variance to allow parking w ithin 4.5' of the street lot line as proposed? 1 he intent of required yards is to provide open .space as weP as green space. Does the proposed .setback variance still yield a green space along the street that is acceptable and consistent with the City's vision for the Na\arre area? Building height: .Applicant has indicated the need for a building height variance. However, no cross sections or site grading plans have been provided to allow staff to conclude whether such a variance is necessary. In general, will Planning Commission consider the granting of a heicht variance for this new' construction? Staff Kecommendation Planning Commission may wish to briefly consider the requested variances and give applicant some general direction, or Planning Commission may conclude that there is insufficient information to give that direction. While it may be difficult or impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion on each of the variances absent the necessaiy' infomiation, if Planning Commission feels strongly that certain