Laserfiche WebLink
FILEW^29M <br />NovvmMf 7 2C03 <br />Pag«3o<6 <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 materi^ subminal. <br />As of the date of this report the raised garden has not been brought into compliance. <br />LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET <br />LoLArea/Widlhi <br />RR-IB 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 sport court: <br />RR-IB Required Esisting Proposed <br />Front <br />78 ’ <br />•Front. 30 feet <br />minimum and not Hiihin <br />the required front )ird <br />nor between the front lot <br />line and the principal <br />structure on the <br />properw. <br />155 ’No Change <br />Rear 30’2ir No Change <br />East Side 30’5.8 ’No Change <br />j West Side 30’175 ’No Change <br />Side Yard Setback Variaace <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 Ir:'* than <br />would be required for even just a small storage sh^. The applicants have proposed <br />additional landscaping screening consisting of arborviiae between the sport court and the