Laserfiche WebLink
Setbacks. The former convent building would conform to all <br />setback requirements. The lot split would allow Tract B to be in <br />conformance with the required parking lot setbacks, however, does <br />not allow the garage to be in conformance with the ten (10) foot <br />side yard setback requirement for Tract A. Our office would <br />recommend the following options in response to the setback /lot <br />line issue: <br />1. The lot line be adjusted to allow for a ten foot setback to <br />the rear of the garage. This situation would require the <br />lot line to be located so that the parking lot would be <br />bisected by the lot line. This situation would not allow <br />for the required side yard setback from the parking lot, and <br />would have the parking lot encroaching into Tract A. <br />This option could be considered appropriate, however, due to <br />the nature of the shared parking agreement and conditional <br />use permits approved for the parcels. Variances in this <br />instance would not be required due to the existence of the <br />CUPs. <br />2. Option 2 would recommend the lot lines remain the same, <br />however, removal of the garage would be required to avoid <br />any future complications regarding the status of the <br />encroachment easement. <br />It would not be recommended that the lot line between Lot A and B <br />be located as proposed due to the possible precedent setting <br />situation that may occur. If the proposed split is approved as <br />planned with encroachment easements, similar requests for lot <br />splits may follow. Variances are to be evaluated on hardship, <br />and it does not appear that such conditions exist in this case. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Our office would recommend approval of the St. John's lot split <br />subject to the following recommendations: <br />1. The lot line between Tracts A and B is adjusted so that the <br />garage on Tract A conforms to setback requirements, or the <br />subdivision remains as drawn and the garage is removed.. <br />2. Review of the lot split by the City Engineer and Building <br />Inspector. <br />3. Comments by City Staff. <br />cc: Joel Hanson <br />Kathy Glanzer <br />John Palacio <br />Tom Sweeney <br />Father Robert Fitzpatrick <br />Mike Lynch <br />2 <br />Page 27 <br />