Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Pile 11316 <br />August 8r 1968 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />' \tf would reconupend the following course of action to the Planning <br />Commission: <br />1. Regardless of what structure is ultimately approved, hardcover <br />should not increase above the existing 29.9% as shown in the staff <br />hardcover review. <br />2. Maintain the 10* required setback from the rear lot line. <br />3. Maintain the 10* required setback from the house and existing <br />detached garage, unless a reasonable hardship is shown to allow that <br />setback to decrease. <br />4. Unless a substantial hardship can be shown, applicant should cut <br />down the “*^tal floor ^rea of che structure to meet the required 1,000 <br />s.f. u" ' jm floor area standard. <br />5. Scaff would strongly recommend that alternative sites within the <br />property be considered for construction of this garage to minimise its <br />impact on the property; for instance, placing the additional garage <br />west of the existing garage, to minimize the need for steep driveway <br />and its added hardcover (see Exhibit I). <br />Finally, I would note that the property owner has not signed the <br />application and should do so at his earlie t convenience. <br />* J CA«i- <br />4 <br />•if <br />V •'-.itv.-r: <br />n Si-