Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Received: 4/20/16 <br />Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/6/16 <br />60-Day Review Period Expires: 7/5/16 <br /> <br /> <br /> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: June 3, 2016 <br /> Item No.: 9 <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: <br />Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning <br />Dept. <br />Title: Senior Planner <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Item Description: #16-3830, Zehnder Homes, Inc., 1255 Dickenson St. - Variances <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District, 2.0 acres/200’ min. width <br />Lot Area/ Width: 13,533 s.f. (0.31 acre) / 100’ defined width <br /> <br />List of Exhibits <br /> A – Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 5/12/16 <br />B – Notice of PC Action 5/18/16 <br /> C – Draft PC Minutes of 5/16/16 <br /> D – Pre-demolition Site Photos (2011) <br /> E – 1961 Survey and Current Proposed Site Plan <br /> <br />Application Summary: The applicant requests variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, <br />side setback, side street setback and structural coverage for construction of a new residence on <br />the property. <br /> <br />Please review the attached Planning Commission memo, exhibits and draft minutes. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed this application <br />and held a public hearing at its May 16 meeting, and voted 5-1 on a motion to recommend <br />approval of the area, width, setback and structural coverage variances. The minority vote was <br />apparently due to that commissioner’s position that a structural coverage variance was not <br />justified for new construction, while other commissioners felt that there were practical <br />difficulties supporting that variance. Please review the PC minutes. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Proposed is structural coverage of 16.6% where only 15.0% is allowed. Staff finds it difficult to <br />support the structural coverage variance based on this being new construction on a lot that has <br />been vacant for the past five years. In general, staff has supported structural coverage variances <br />in situations where a clear practical difficulty exists, such as a request for a garage for an existing <br />house where no garage exists, or for adding a small covered entry porch where none exists over <br />the main entry door. The structural coverage variance in this case is a direct result of the