Laserfiche WebLink
njEm-Tm <br />imuary ^ 2004 <br />PagaSors <br />10. **Thc granting of the appGcatioo is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of a substantial property right of die ^iplicanL’* <br />tn tht opinion of staff this criterion is not met. <br />II. **The granting of the proposed variance uill not in any way impair health, safety, <br />comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contnry' to the intent of the Zoning <br />Code.” <br />7n the opinion of staff this criterion is met. <br />12. ”The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the <br />applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” <br />The applicants' wish to reuse the existing foundation in order to affordably remodel <br />their home could be viewed as a request of convenience. Jn the opinion of staff this <br />criterion is not met. <br />baocs for Coosideratioo <br />Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />1 . Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a: story bonus room above more <br />intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low <br />one-story garage? Will either expansion have negauve visual impacts? <br />2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild, <br />should it meet all zoning requirements, including seibccks? Under the proposed <br />ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. <br />3. Is the applicants' desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard <br />setback considered a hardship? <br />Stair RccommeiidaHoo <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback <br />of 24.r where 30' is required, in order to construct an expanded one-story garage with <br />bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: <br />I. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and <br />bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan.