Laserfiche WebLink
mmZoning File #1629 <br />April 2, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />Planning Conn|^^idon Reco:rrx.idation <br />MThe<^[i^r members of the Planning Commission present at their <br />March reconvened meeting were split on their recommendation for <br />thes|^2|#iriances. The motion to recommend approval resulted in a 2 to <br />2 v^le. Those in favor felt that the original reasons for granting <br />the variance are equally applicable to the current request, especially <br />since the building is less total floor area rhan the original <br />approval, and that the structure indeed more than met the City’s goals <br />and requirements for screening to make it nor-obtrusi^e in the <br />neighborhood. <br />The Planning Commissioners not in favor of tie motion agreed that <br />the screening had been more than adequate, however, they also felt <br />that the original approval was not based on sufficient reasonable <br />hardships, and had voted against the building originally. <br />Staff Rec ndation <br />Given no clear direction from the Planning Commission, staff <br />would again suggest that Council review the memo of March 11th and the <br />findings and conditions of Resolution #2204. The applicant obviously <br />feels that he should be allowed a building of the same floor area as <br />was originally approved. The City changed the criteria for accessory <br />buildings to the "footprint area" after adoption of that resolution. <br />If the same findings that resulted in approval in 1987 are still <br />valid, then Council would be justified in granting approval. The <br />applicants did execute a covenant as required, that in conjuction with <br />City Zoning Ordinances, severely restricts the property owner's <br />ability to change the nature of the property. <br />Staff recommends approval of the addition subject to continuation <br />of the existing covenants and the findings and conditions of the <br />previous resolution. However, because of the split Planning <br />Commission vote, staff has not drafted a resolution, hence Council <br />should conceptually approve or deny the request and direct staff to <br />draft a resolution for your next meeting. <br />Isv