Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2264 <br />July 17, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />to remove the entire superstructure of the residence, and likely will be able to reuse only parts <br />of the foundation. Additionally, it was determined that the plan submitted for the building <br />permit had been revised from those used to gain variance approval in 1996. Specifically, while <br />the bulk of structure has been slightly reduced, there is a new encroachment into the 0-75' <br />setback, as well as an additional encroachment within the 30' side setback. <br />The proposed complete removal of the existing residence not only triggers the need for a lot <br />area and lot width variance, but also provides the City with an opportunity to have the new <br />construction substantially meet the City's setback requirements if that is deemed feasible and <br />appropriate. <br />Applicant's new site plan includes some minor revisions to hardcover layout on the site, as well <br />as reducing the proposed detached garage addition to only one additional stall, in order to meet <br />the hardcover limitations as imposed by the prior approval, as well as meet the required street <br />setback. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Is the new minor encroachment into the 0-75' setback zone justified by any hardship, <br />or should the house be further redesigned to eliminate that encroaclunent? (Compare <br />Exhibits E & F) <br />Is the proposed additional side setback encroachment appropriate and justified, or should <br />that encroachment be eliminated? <br />Given the nature of the property, including orientation and relationship to neighboring <br />houses, the steep hill to the north, the septic system location in the hillside, tree <br />locations, etc., is there justification to grant variances to allow reconstruction of the <br />residence substantially within its existing non-conforming footprint, or should the City <br />take this opportunity to require that the new home be constructed at a location meeting <br />setback requirements? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission must take into account the site factors noted above in determining <br />whether it would be appropriate to require redesign and/or a relocation of the residence. The <br />existing house is currently sitting empty, and applicant had every intention of commencing <br />construction in late June when the new variance concerns were discovered.