02-09-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 1 FILEi03-296S January 7,2004 PagaSofS 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 11 . “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The applicants' wish to reuse the existing foundation in order to affordably remodel their home could be viewed as a request of convenience. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 1 . Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a V2 story bonus room above more intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low one-story garage? Will either expansion have negative visual impacts? 2. Should ^s project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild, should it meet all zoning requirements, including setbacks? Under the proposed ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. 3. Is the applicants’ desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback considered a hardship? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.r where 30 ’ is required, in order to construct an expanded one-story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: I. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan. ' d'l mil I I 'iiiiuiiiiltfiift'