Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />The property was granted a variance in 1976 for the garage. It was built 8.4 ’ and 9.3’ from <br />the side lot line. Also, in 1976, permits were issued for the decks and siding the garage. <br />Front Yard Setback: <br />The existing residence is located approximately 13’ from the front property line where 30’ is <br />required in the LR-IC zoning district. The setback will not change with the new second story <br />addition. While significant portions of the exiting first story may be removed as part of this <br />remc..wl, the applicant *> Meves a majority of the first story which encroaches into the front <br />yard setback will remai... <br />Lot Coverage by Structures: <br />The existing lot coverage by structures is 2,840 s.f. (17.9%). The applicant is proposing to <br />remove structure and add structure but keeping it at 2,840 s.f. (17.9%). The lean-to and street <br />deck removals will reduce two existing setback encroachments. <br />Hardcover: <br />The subject property falls in the 250-S00 ’ setback zone. The applicant is proposing to remove <br />and add hardcover, and will slightly decrease the amount of hardcover by 46 s.f. The <br />hardcover that exists on the subject property is 4,349 s.f. (27.5%) and the proposed amount is <br />4,303 s.f. (27.2%). Both are below the allowed 30%. A hardcover variance in the 250-500 ’ <br />setback zone is not required. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION: <br />Planning Commission reviewed the requested variances and site issues at a public hearing held on <br />Wednesday, January 22, 2003. Planning commission recommended as follows: <br />1. Approval of the front yard setback. <br />2. Approval of lot coverage by structure with condition of removing the shed. <br />3. If the part of the foundation which is located within the 30' front setback needs to be <br />replaced, the application will be revisited. <br />The vote on the above conclusions in the form of a motion was 5 to 1 , with Commissioner Marc <br />Fiit/.ler in the minority, of the opinion that the proposed project was new construction versus <br />remodel due to the potential of extensi%e first story removals. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />To approve the enclosed resolution. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: <br />To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. <br />i <br />i