Laserfiche WebLink
Compatibility: <br />The proposal does not comply with the strict intent of the <br />variance criteria. However, the applicant is proposing to <br />maintain the nonconforming setback that is legally existing. <br />The reason for this request is to allow the south wall of the <br />addition to line up with the south wall of the existing building. <br />The legally existing nonconforming setback is proposed to be <br />maintained, not increased. Two questions arise with this <br />request: 1.) What will the City gain by requiring the 20 foot <br />setback for a proposed addition that abuts a structure that <br />violates the same setback? and 2.) Will an undesirable <br />precedent be set if this variance is approved? If approved, the <br />City will establish a precedent for similar situations in the <br />future. The City is well within its right to deny this request <br />based on non - compliance with established ordinance variance <br />criteria. In our opinion, the City must decide how to proceed <br />and interpret available options. <br />Site Plan Review: <br />Parking. Based on City off - street parking requirements, this <br />proposal provides an excess of two parking spaces after the ten <br />percent discount. All parking areas meet or exceed all setback <br />requirements. <br />Curb Cuts. The proposal calls for enlarging the two existing <br />curb cuts that serve this site. The City Ordinance allows a <br />maximum curb cut width of 24 feet. However, deviations from this <br />are allowed if approved by the City Engineer. Curb cuts of 31 <br />feet and 40 feet are proposed to allow for on -site truck <br />manueverability access to the loading dock. In our opinion, this <br />is a viable request because it will eliminate public street <br />maneuvering for loading dock truck traffic. Again, formal <br />approval must come from the City Engineer. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Justification for this variance is not established with regard to <br />Ordinance variance criteria. The request does not propose an <br />increase in the existing non - conforming rear yard setback. Based <br />on these points, our office believes action on this request <br />requires a policy decision on behalf of the City. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />John Palacio <br />Don Carley <br />Tom Sweeney <br />William Strouts <br />Page 85 <br />