06-24-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to the west would be necessary. This would accommodate better access to the drive through window, and allow for better screening from the adjacent property. However, it would encroach on Rosewood Drive significantly. It should be noted that the residential lot to the north was granted a variance for the setback to Rosewood Drive. That setback variance was from 30 feet to 16 feet. Although the Zoning District is R -1, Single Family on that lot, some of the same issues relate to the proposed site. The extension of Rosewood Drive in this location was a dedication which was made to provide access to the Rosewood Drive residential lots north and east of this site. Prior to that dedication, the setbacks for this lot would have been zero side yards as a B -3 zoned parcel, or 15 feet on each side as an R -B zoned parcel. The criteria for variance consideration are based in physical hardship which makes reasonable use of the property impractical under the existing standards. Narrowness of an existing lot of record is one example given in the Ordinance as such a condition. In addition, the significantly changed setback standards resulting from the street dedication could be another. If the rezoning is granted for this lot to accommodate the proposed use, a variance from the setback to Rosewood Drive may be appropriate given the circumstances of this parcel. One note in relation to the building drawings which have been submitted as a part of the application: a covered porch is subject to the same building setbacks as an enclosed building. The proposed porch projection to the west would decrease the setback from 17 feet to 15 feet. It would appear that the design could be modified to avoid this additional encroachment. On the front, there is adequate room as designed to meet the 30 foot setback from the street right -of -way line to the porch. Summary and Recommendation The primary issue in this application is the determination of the most appropriate zoning district for the site, and for the area. The B -3 zoning would not have accommodated any residential use on this property. While the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the change from residential to commercial uses will occur in this block, it is the zoning district which identifies the precise location and the nature of the change. The City must decide if the line already established zoning (including four lots of B -3 along County Road C) is the appropriate land use, or if the introduction of residential uses in this area would be a better transition. A decision in favor of the rezoning should be based upon a finding that the transitional nature of the district would best implement the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. If the R -B rezoning is approved, we would recommend the approval of the Conditional Use permit generally based upon the alternative site plan proposed by staff. The original plan suggested by the developer would fail to meet a number of parking - related setbacks and 3 Page 46