362, Construction of a reflecting p, Staff ReportsTO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: STAFF REPORT FOR JULY 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
1. ZONING CASE NO. 361:
On June 21, 1988, the Planning Commission denied Zoning Case No.
361. This zoning case was a request for a variance to allow for the
encroachment into the established front yard, at 14 Southfield Drive.
The purpose of the variance request was for the expansion of the
existing residential structure.
The Commission denied the request for two reasons. First, it was
determined that the proposed project did not provide for an adequate
location for a future stable. Second, it was determined that the
project would result in a congested and overcrowded site. While these
are important considerations in making a final decision, the
Commission should make the findings necessary to support the decision
to deny the variance request. On the other hand, if the Commission
desires to favorably consider Zoning Case No. 361, it must make
findings necessary to support such a decision.
Please refer to your Decision Checklist for guidance in regard to
the findings necessary for the granting a variance.
ZONING CASE NO. 362:
This is a request for a variance to allow an encroachment into the
minimum front yard setback requirement (50 feet). There is presently a
non -conforming 13 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. The
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Yu -Ping Lui, are requesting additional
encroachments to 1) 34 feet (30 feet for support column) to allow for
the construction of a proposed entry way roof extension and 2) 40 feet
to allow for the construction of a reflecting pond. The proposed
encroachments would result in the main building structure being within
16 feet of the roadway easement and the reflecting pool being within
10 feet of the roadway easement.
Before the Commission makes a decision, the staff recommends that
the lot coverage data be corrected and properly noted on the Zoning
Case No. 362 plans. When the Commission does consider this matter,
staff recommends that Zoning Case No. 362 be denied. The basis for the
denial is found in Section 6, Subsections 3, 4 and 5 of attached
resolution.