Laserfiche WebLink
FI- <br />k: <br />r ► <br />if'- <br />^.:r;''M <br />- ■'rt-^ <br />‘J- ■ <br />r^' <br />A- <br />k-- <br />rsu <br />i^-‘ <br />^ ■ <br />tr'Wi:-fe' <br />■tf"-I <br />k . <br />;■ <br />Si <br />Zoning File «1626 <br />September 18, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />Isanes to Consider <br />1.Remembering that the variance runs with the property, not <br />with a specific applicant, the question to consider is <br />whether the revised plan meets the spirit and intent of the <br />Council in approving the variances for Traff's site plan. <br />2.Will the encroachment of the 3-car garage into the 30' side <br />setback create visual density problems that are not inherent <br />in the Traff proposal? <br />3.Is there any change in the impact on neighboring properties <br />resulting from the revised plan? If so, would input from <br />the adjacent property owners influence Council's final <br />decision on this request? Note that the Planning Commission <br />reviewed the request briefly and informally at their <br />September 18 meeting, and generally agreed that the changes <br />should be reviewed by Council, but did not discuss the <br />specifics of the request. <br />Staff tion <br />Council may wish to consider the following optional courses <br />of actionX <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />/pprove the revised site plan as proposed. <br />Approve with revisions. <br />Conceptually approve, direct applicant to revise (give <br />specific direction). <br />4.Refer to Planning COTmission for formal recommendation <br />(does Council wish that neighboring property o%mers be <br />renotified?). <br />5.Conceptual denial based on increase area of encroaching <br />footprint. <br />8• Other. <br />Applicants wish to get started with construction as soon as <br />possible. If this item was referred back to the Planning <br />Commission for their October 21 meeting, it would be placed on <br />the October 28 Council agenda. <br />Isv