Laserfiche WebLink
<br />applicant recently submitted a letter that states the flat roof on the new garage would not be used <br />as a deck; however, the drawings appear to show that the roof could be used as a deck <br />(Attachment 7C-2). <br /> <br />Additional Information <br /> <br />The applicant has submitted additional information in support of the variance request <br />(Attachment 7C-2). At the Planning Commission meeting, there was a brief discussion <br />regarding the possibility oflowering the existing garage to reduce the driveway slope and <br />maintain the 40 foot front yard setback. At the meeting, the applicant stated that it would not be <br />structurally possible to lower the existing garage. The applicant did not have any information to <br />support her claim at that time. The applicant has now submitted a letter from her builder for the <br />City's review (Attachment 7C-2). The letter does suggest that lowering the existing garage and <br />maintaining the integrity of the existing structure would be difficult. This information was <br />submitted after the Planning Commission review. <br /> <br />In addition to the letter from the applicant and her builder, the applicant has also submitted <br />additional drawings of the proposed garage (Attachment 7C-2). The design is the same design <br />reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Two letters were submitted to the City via email after the reports were sent to the Planning <br />Commission. The Planning Commission did review the emails at their meeting. Copies of the <br />emails are included in Attachment 7C-3. <br /> <br />Findinl!s of Fact <br /> <br />The Planning Commission offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review (the italicized <br />findings are particularly important for the variance): <br /> <br />1. The lot size is between 13,939 and 14,057 square feet. A certified survey will be needed <br />to determine if the lot is conforming or nonconforming. The status of the lot does not <br />impact this variance application. <br />2. The lot meets all other dimension requirements for the R-I Zone. <br />3. The existing dwelling and attached garage conform to all setback and coverage <br />requirements. <br />4. According to the applicant, the existing driveway up to the garage has a 16.2 percent <br />grade. The proposed driveway would have a significantly reduced grade change. <br />5. The proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. <br />6. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square <br />feet. <br />7. The proposed garage would not significantly change the impervious coverage on the lot. <br />The structure coverage would increase from 15.8 percent to 20.2 percent, but the <br />driveway size would be reduced. The overall impervious coverage would remain <br />nnchanged at approximately 34 percent. <br /> <br />\\Metro-inet.uslardenhil/slPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-0J2 Muller Variance (PENDING)106JJ07 - CCReport - Muller Variance.doc <br />Page 2 of4 <br />