pf_02383 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roland GisVOld, Case No. 2383 Page 2 3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION The variance requested is the minimum necessary in order to build a two-car garage that overcomes the hardship imposed by the original design of the house on the site. If the Planning commission agreees that a two-car garage is a basic necessity, then the variance is reasonable and should be granted. Such a decision would be consistent with the previous action at 938 Transit Avenue. If the Commission feels that a single-car garage is sufficient, which is consistent with City Code requirements, then there is no hardship, since the applicant is creating the condition that exceeds the Code standards, and the variance should not be granted. This case brings up issues the Commission may wish to discuss in more detail, since it points out gray areas in the Code. Remodelling a home with a single-car garage to provide a two-car garage is not uncommon, and the same situation is likely to come up again many times, since there are many homes in the City faced with the same constraint: a single-car garage attached at the side of a house, too close to the lot line to expand into a two-car garage or to build a driveway into the back yard. Placing a two-car garage in the front yard is not elegant, but is perhaps a necessary solution given today's needs. In today's automobile-oriented world, is a two-car garage part of the basic needs of a single family property, and should the zoning standards be changed to reflect that? There are provisions in the Code that deal with pre-existing conditions that need special consideration: the 70% lot size rule and the 5' setback areas, to name two. A special provision might be added dealing with conversion from single-car garages to two-car garages. The other issue relates to the minor variance process. The previous case at 938 Transit was granted a minor variance, and this one might have been as well, had not the neighbor objected. Now the Planning Commission must make a decision based on findings, hardships, practical difficulties, and equal protection. Should the principles involved be dependent on the wishes of a neighbor? In one case it is approved quickly, and in the next case, almost identical, it is not - and at extra expense, too, since the normal variance application fee is much more than the minor variance application fee. Should this continue to be part of the City process?