07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MM913 July 21,2003 Pages 10."The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The variance as requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate any hardship. Staff would agree to the necessity ofa covered entry with minimal impact. 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.” It is the opinion of staff that 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.” It is the opinion ofstaff that this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration 1 . Are the changes proposed strictly aesthetic? 2. Does the size of the proposed open porch addition continue to contribute to the overcrowding of the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this implication? Staff Recommendation a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of 5’ from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. However, staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the 10 ’ side yard setback and resulting in a further 30 s.f. (S’ x 6’) decrease in proposed structural coverage. b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be required by removing the S9.S s.f segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to be 6’ X IS’ (90 s.f installed as opposed to 120 s.f). c) The applicant’s proposal does not include removal of 3S6 s.f of plastic/fabric lined landscape beds in the 7S’*2S0 ’ zone. If these are removed (staff recommends removal), final 7S’-2S0’ hardcover will be (3S03.16-3S6)=3147.16 s.f or 54.7%. 1