Laserfiche WebLink
<br />". <br />A <br /> <br /> <br />'Established 1857 <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />May 7, 2002 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Phmnine; and Zoning Commission <br />Kim Moore-Sykes, City Administrator ~ <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />Variance Request for 1710 Peltier LaKe Drive <br /> <br />,........................................................................... <br /> <br />Tracy and Kathryn Tratar, property owners of 1710 Peltier Lake Drive, are requesting <br />that they be granted a variance of 11 feet in order to construct an attached two-car garage. <br /> <br />This residential lot is a comer lot and as such under the current Ordinance #4, is required <br />to adhere to the 35-foot front yard setbacks for each side of the' lot that abuts a street. <br />Because of this requirement, Mr. and Mrs. Tratar are precluded from building an attached <br />two-car garage to their principal structure. They appeared before the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission and requested that the Commission recommend to the City Colincil <br />that Ordinance #4 be amended to require only one front yard setback on a comer lot. <br />Because revising ordinances is an arduous and lengthIy process, the Tratars have decided <br />to apply for a variance so that if approved, they might build their attached garage during <br />the current building season. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br />In considering this request, the Planning and Zoning must review an application for <br />variance using the following criteria: <br /> <br />1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical <br />conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue <br />hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, shonld the applicable <br />ordinance be strictly enforced. <br /> <br />This criterion applies to the Tratars in that they own a corner lot, The shape of <br />their lot prevents them from building an attached garage to their single-family <br />structure. Granting an 11-100t variance would relieve an undue hardship in that <br />they are not currently able to have a two-car garage as a part of their principal <br />structure. <br /> <br />2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to <br />increase the value or income potential of the parcel ofland, but would correct <br />