Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 3/14/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1244 February 11, 1988 Page 3 of 3 This denial is subject to the following conditions: 1. Detached garage and apron area, not included with approved driveway entrance, to be removed by April 15, 1988... ? 2. Applicant is further advised that the 15'xl5' apron may be installed and to work with staff regarding a more feasible approach and exit entrance to garage that would expand upon the paving providinu better maneuverability but in no case can hardcover exceed 30% within the 75-250' setback area. 3. Planning Commission would also have to approve the variance for the additional hardcover within the 0-75', which would now total 18.1% over the original approved 17.5% with application no. 1006. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Reco■ endation - March 4, 1988 The Planning Commission listened to the oral comments of both Mrs. Palm and the Palm's attorney. Members advised that they could find no change in the findings from the first land use review or additional, new hardships that were not already covered in the first review and advised the applicant of the dangers of setting such a precedent if they were to approve the current request in light of the conditions of the first approval. Planning Commission did not accept the options proposed by staff which would allow the bulk -head door to remain and to possibly allow additional paving not to exceed 30% within the 75-250' setback area providing greater maneuverability. Planning Commission basically wanted the conditions of the first review to remain. Planning Commission Recos ndation - To deny applicant's variance application that sought to retain the detached garage, bulk -head door and existing paving referred to as driveway apron adjacent to Shadywood Road, based on the following findings: 1. Applicant participated throuqhout the entire review and received notice of all final action culminating in the signing of a formal resolution whereby applicant agreed to make the necessary removals. 2. A total variance of 43% hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is excessive for this size property and would not be consistent with previous Council action with similar applications nor is it consistent with pattern of development of adjacent neighborhood. 3. The applicant has not presented adequate hardship to satisfy the current hardcover application.