Laserfiche WebLink
FILE«:3-2950 <br />Noveirt*' 7.2003 <br />Pa;«3of6 <br />City Codes. <br />On October 31 ” Staff called the applicants because the materials had not been submitted <br />and Staff realized that the deadline date that was given fell on a Saturday. The applicants <br />were notified at that time that the materials were to be submitted by 10 am Monday, <br />November 3"*. There was a misunderstanding regarding who was to be responsible for <br />submitting each of the required items which was causing the delay in material submittal. <br />As of the date of this report the raised garden has not been brought into compliance. <br />LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET <br />Lot Area/Width: <br />RR>1B Lot Area Lot Width <br />Required 87.120 s.f. (2 acre)200’ <br />Actual 89.189 s.f. (2.047 acre)303 ’ <br />Setbacks for the snort court; <br />RR-IB Required Existing Proposed <br />Front <br />78' <br />•Front, 30 feet <br />minimum and not within <br />the required front yard <br />nor between the front lot <br />line and the principal <br />structure on the <br />property. <br />155 ’No Change <br />Rear 30 ’2ir No Change <br />East Side 30 ’5.8’No Change <br />West Side 30 ’175 ’No Change <br />Side Yard Setback Variance <br />A 30 ’ side yard setback is required; the current setback of the sport court is between 3.5 ’ <br />and 6 ’ from the eastern side property line. The applicants are asking the Planning <br />Commission to allow a structure 2380 s.f., which is 1380 s.f. larger than the threshold <br />which triggers the increased setback of 30 ’. to be set back less than 6 ’ from the property <br />line. Additionally, the setback requested by the applicants is significantly less than <br />would be required for even just a small storage shed. The applicants have proposed <br />additional landscaping screening consisting of arbor%'itae between the sport court and the