Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> DATE: 04/10/02 MEETING DATE: 04/16/02 <br /> TO: Planning Commission Members <br /> FROM: Susan Henry, Assistant City Manager <br /> SUBJECT: 3501 Downers Drive: Floor Area Ratio Variance Request <br /> Requested Action: <br /> Tom Brama, property owner of the single-family residential lot at 3501 Downers Drive, is <br /> requesting a variance from the .30 floor area ratio requirement in the City Ordinance for <br /> a new construction project. <br /> Background: <br /> Several months ago, Mr. Brama came to City Hall to discuss with city staff his plans to <br /> build a new single family home on the lot at 3501 Downers Drive. Mr. Brama was <br /> informed of the city ordinances and that he planned a home larger than what was <br /> allowed. The builder, Larry Beach Construction, was also made aware of this. They <br /> were told a building permit could not be issued until the plan was brought to the city <br /> ordinance standards for floor area ratio. <br /> Larry Beach Construction submitted revised plans thereafter, which eliminated an <br /> encroachment and reduced the floor area ratio by converting what was previously a <br /> "bonus room" over the garage into a simple garage attic space. The Building Official <br /> noted on the revised plans that there could be no floor or ceiling covering in this attic <br /> space so as to leave any doubt that this was not to be floor area. The builder also <br /> indicated on the revised plans that the door from the second floor to the "bonus room" <br /> would be removed. Based on these changes, the Building Official issued the building <br /> permit. <br /> Now, months later, Mr. Brama is back to city offices asking for a variance to the city <br /> ordinance to allow the construction of the "bonus room." By state statute, the applicant <br /> must prove a hardship, which by definition prevents the owner from putting the property <br /> to reasonable use. <br /> Staff Recommendation: <br /> Staff recommends denial of this variance for two reasons. There is not a hardship for <br /> the applicant to put the property to reasonable use. The surrounding properties are <br /> being put to the same use and in many instances are actually smaller. Also, the builder <br /> and the applicant agreed to the reduction in floor area prior to being issued the building <br /> permit. It's not justifiable in this case to be granted a variance after the fact. The <br /> variance should have been applied for prior to asking for the building permit. <br /> Attachments: <br /> • Application for Variance <br /> • Memorandum from Castle Inspection Services <br />