PCAgenda_95Dec11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DSU, INC. D14~414 Planning Reporf 'f 588 NorfhroplSchif9`man-Kloser 7218185 6 i None of the conditions cited apply to this property_ The applicants in this case have proceeded properly: their purchase agreement is contingent on City approval of a variance far their desired plan, but the City is under no obligation to grant the variance. TIMING QF THE REQUEST The applicants have indicated that they may not build the garage for another five years if the variance is granted_ Sec. 9-15_fl3, Subd_ 3 of the Cade states that a variance terminates after one year unless the decision granting the variance states otherwise. Five years in my opinion is a long time to be tied to a variance decision, since site conditions and surrounding conditions could change. I would suggest granting a twv- year extension of the variance, which could then be renewed by a decision of the Planning Commission and Council far another year yr two at any time before the two years lapse. The renewal would be abased on a review and decision that conditions affecting the variance have not signif'icantty changed since the variance was granted. CONCE.USt~DN x. RECQMMENDATIt)N The applicants are hoping to purchase a home that has only a one-car garage and want to improve the property by building a fi+vo-car garage, if there were no reasonable way • to fit a two-car garage (or an addi#ional one-oar garage space} on the lot, the City would look more favorably an the minimum variance necessary to overcome this iimitatian. In the situation at 9,598 Northrop, there appear to be severe! reasonab~ alternatives to granting the variance to the front yard setback. The fact that attractive private yard space would betaken far a necessary two-car garage does not justify a variance. Taken to the extreme, one could argue that the lot would be even mare attractive if there were no house ar garage an it at all, and that all structures should be built in the setback area. But some sacrifices must be made tv achieve the expansion of personal space that the applicants want. to essence, the applicants are hoping to trade public space (the front yard setback to the street} for private space (their existing yard as it is}_ This is not a trade that is justified as in the public interest, nor is it supported by the zoning code s#andards. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance tv the City Council. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, the approval should be for a specific time (a year or two} and should be conditioned on an acaarate lot survey to verify dimensions and locations of existing and proposed site improvements.