Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1376 <br />March 15, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Pertinent Pacts - <br />1. Applicants propose to remove the driveway from in front of the <br />attached garage, and use that garage merely for storage. They would <br />then retain the existing detached garage and reconstruct the apron and <br />backup area to minimize hardcover (Plan 1). <br />2. As an alternate plan, applicants would leave a narrow driveway leading <br />to the attached garage, passing directly in front of the detached <br />garage (Plan 2). <br />3. Hardcover proposal (75-250'): <br />Plan 1 <br />Plan 2 <br />Pre-Existing <br />2800 sf(27.3%) <br />2800 sf(27.3%) <br />Current <br />4558 sf(44.4%) <br />4558 sf(44.4%) <br />Allowed Proposed Final <br />2980 sf(29%) 3305 sf(32.2%) <br />2980 sf(29%) 3354 sf(32.7%) <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Planning Commission must make a determination for approval or denial <br />of the requested variance amendment, taking into account the following <br />factors: <br />1. Applicants actual storage needs. <br />2. Is the proposed apron and backup area of Plan 1 sufficient for <br />permanent access to this property? Does Plan 2 provide an adequate <br />driveway area? <br />3. Is the proposed hardcover increase reasonable, given the extent of <br />previous variances granted for this property? <br />4. Given that there is now an attached garage which meets the <br />required setbacks, is it reasonable to allow the existing garage with <br />its substandard setbacks, to remain? <br />5. Under Plan 1, how will the City prevent the attached garage from <br />being used as a garage, and will there be a tendency by this owner or <br />a future owner to use it as a garage, ultimately creating driveway <br />hardcover? <br />6. If this request is approved, how wi' I the City react if, when the <br />property to the north is redeveloped, a similar request comes in from <br />that property owner to keep that garage which was to be removed, i.e. <br />does allowing the Palm garage to remain set a precedent that weakens <br />the City's position in placing conditions on variances? <br />7. Does applicants' claim that they were lead astray by their builder <br />have any bearing on this request?