09-15-2008 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

t o � File 08-3377 � September 15, 2008 � Page 4 of 4 , Issues for Consideration . Is it likely Hill Street will ever be improved? Three properties abut Hill Street — the - applicant's, 300 Crestview Avenue, which has a driveway within the right of way and _. � 270 Crestview Avenue, which owns 50 feet of frontage on Crestview Avenue north of the applicant's property and accesses there. The two acre size and the shape,of 270 make it � highly unlikely the property would need Hill Street for access. In 1995 the vacation of Hill Street was proposed and supported by the Public Works Director. Action was ' postponed because of some drainage issues in the area. (The file doesn't specify the connection between the vacation and the water problem; one possible solution to the problem might have been to pipe the excess water to Stubbs Bay Creek down the Hill - . Street right of way.) Staff and the applicant reviewed the possibility of requesting . vacation of the street, but the driveway for 3 00 extends into the north half of the right of . way so that owner is unlikely to consent to the vacation. Are the proposed additions to the house reasonable�and necessary for the properly? The Commission should consider the size, floor plan and functionality of the existing house and proposed additions. � . Are the proposed additions compatible with surrounding properties? The Commission should consider the location of the additions in relation to adjoining property as well as the impact of the enlarged house. � . � Wha1 is the �°elationship between the existing garage ana' the proposed garage? _ The applicant has right to reconstruct the e�isting garage. He is choosing to not do so because he considers the existing garage unattractive and the proposed garage would reduce hardcover and structural coverage allowing the additions, patio and sidewalks to extent � proposed. � � Is a two-car garage a necessity for this property? If Commission accepts that a two-car garage is reasonable for this properry, the question is what variance will be granted to ' ' � � accommodate it. If the garage is placed 10 feet from the north property line a house- gaxage setback variance would be required as it would be only 7 feet from the house. To eliminate this variance the garage would have to be placed less than 10 feet from the rear property line or closer to the street than the house. If the garage were attached to the house the setback to the north property line would increase to 30 feet. -The Commission should ask the applicant if the width of the garage could be reduced. Are there any other issues or conce�°ns with this application? � Staff Recommendation • � Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the additions to the house. Staff also recommends approval of whatever variance the Commission considers appropriate to accommodate a two-car garage of the appropriate width. .