Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2138 <br />June 12, 19% <br />Page 3 <br />4. <br />5. <br />Given the nature of the neighborhood, with a narrow street and some houses set near the <br />road, is the proposed front setback variance appropriate? <br />Because the lot is extremely substandard in area, existing lot coverage is excessive. This lot <br />would normally be allotted 1,500 s.f of lot coverage by structures including house and <br />garage. The additional 92 s.f of structure is a 0.9% increase to 27.7%. Is the fact that <br />neighboring houses on the east side of the street are quite distant, a justification for allowing <br />additional bulk of structure on applicants' property? Recall that the lot coverage by <br />structures ordinance was adopted to address the visual density of structures in a <br />neighborhood. It docs not appear there is any existing structure that could easily be removed <br />to offset the addition. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission should determine whether there are specific hardships that support the <br />variance requests. Planning Commission should also determine whether the proposed addition will <br />have any negative visual impact on the neighborhood. If Planning Commission concludes the lot <br />coverage, hardcover and street setback variances are Justified, you should also determine whether <br />any specific conditions of approval arc necessary to minimize any negative impacts created. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval as proposed. <br />2. Recommend approval with conditions. <br />3. Table for further information (specify). <br />4. Recommend denial (state reasons). <br />5.Other.