Laserfiche WebLink
EZ <br />Page 2 <br />Stieve North <br />Ap rin 1 12 f, 19 8, ]wt <br />Because of the extensive number of' variiances, the staff is <br />10 <br />suggesting, that a, new policy be consideried for those cases where <br />in the past a viarioanicewoulid be required <br />b for the siode-vard <br />(Al .0 <br />setack, sti"Lloulation. We anticipate, as noted earlier, <br />approximately 75' to 1010 of' these tiypies, of variance requests <br />6i <br />because of narrow lots, and exist,ing driveway setbacks. <br />To expedite this matter,, we have suggested a number of <br />di in <br />alternatives would be available for city council cons ideration <br />a <br />These would i-tclude. <br />1. Chiangingthe code requirements for driveway setbacks. <br />0 <br />2, Devielloping a procedure for granting 4 blanket variance to <br />di -me 01 <br />eliminatie inaividual minor variance applications for each <br />case.1 <br />3.i Discontinue the minor variance prociess for side-yard <br />4 6 <br />setbacks and simply allow these situations to rema3.n. <br />The following procedure is suggested:� <br />Stiaff notify, propeirty owner of the need for the variance <br />Ii <br />piroicess to comiply with code requirements for driveway setback, <br />