Laserfiche WebLink
FILEf04-2«72 <br />January 6. 2004 <br />PagaSofS <br />10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of a substantial property right of the applicant.” <br />The applicants have indicated their desire to create a welcoming, neighborly aspect <br />to their home, however, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />property right of the applicants. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. <br />1 1. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, <br />comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning <br />Code.” <br />In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. <br />12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the <br />applicant, but is nece.<;sary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficult) .” <br />The location of the existing home and it's proximity to the required front yard setback <br />are a difficulty for the egfplicants as a variance is required to add a covered front <br />porch to their home. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Is a front porch a “property right” cf the applicant justifying a variance to the <br />setback requirement of the City Code? <br />2. The neightoring homes have cront yard setbacks greater than the required 50 ’, <br />does Planning Commission feel granting this variance would alter the character of <br />the neighborhood? <br />3. Is there a hardship to allow for making an existing conforming setback non- <br />conforming? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />If the Planning Commission concludes that a sufficient hardship exists, then a <br />recommendation for approval of the 5 ’ front yard setback variance may be appropriate <br />with the following stipulation: <br />1 . The covered porch shall not be enclosed so that the \1sual impact of the addition <br />is minimized.