Laserfiche WebLink
J1.11Y � 980 <br />Jack ..ode (# 546 <br />1410 Fsuhns Pint -)c <br />VARIANCE <br />Page 3 <br />2. The plan indicates an open parking space <br />Becker property line encroaching both the <br />(yard area) for parking, Section 38.201, <br />easement. There should be no reason why <br />f f _ <br />�� pia, .• <br />within 5 feet of the <br />required 1G foot setback <br />and the 10 foot walkway <br />this can not be eliminated. <br />3. The plan proposed is for a larger house than that proposed in <br />Item 210. This plan requires a 17.5% variance for 3,414 s.f. too <br />much hardcover within the 75-250 ft. setback area. No hardcover <br />valance was dered in Roger's applications. Sep Exhibit 17C <br />for thr Planning .aimissi•.-r's _ '7 hardcover rev'rw of the first <br />Rhode ar.elication. This int s i,ot clearly made in Resolution <br />No. 851, although the fi. dcterm ration in finding 14 was identica <br />with the Planning Commission's posiLior,. <br />The 1980 ,filar, increases the house ai-e and jl,eral1 hardcover 1, 850 s. f . <br />more than the 1977 plan. If that mur !) •,-er were removed from the <br />current plan, then , he r -dc �r varian-ic situai*._on would be the ar-e <br />a-- it was in 1977. In a.._ cisr., a hardship should be demonstra`ed in <br />order to gran r any vz-s'i 3nc.e . <br />Rhode argue or a quack "renews'_" of variances iss-ied in 1977 per <br />suggested amEndmer,ts to Re3olutior No. 851; see Exhibit 15. <br />Becker ..as sc, ld his 'rouse on a cony ra- , b.i+ c, int'. r ies to argue <br />residence or for one located behind t._ne A - +. see his pcsitr i <br />Fxhibit 16. <br />s r',gr_est Planning Commission mer'b—s ro-: j -w tr,- ;e :,istory for <br />background and i,oncentrate dir^u= ;n on the , inz_,rmati n prov Jed <br />with this appitc3tion. <br />1. I recommend a f _nr., 'Ig tnat r.,m,:,%ehensive plans, --)n ord nances <br />and health c.onsi ,_ions such as sewer and ;nearby lot dctielcpme rt <br />have or have nc _ chanq A sir ^e 1977. of , then the .re should be <br />no change in the buildabi' i ' ct .3 of ,e lot.. From: my vant.acte <br />as planner, I know of n�- ch. .ue . <br />2. 1 recommend a f itidinq -hat the new plan doe- dor.4 conorm tL <br />the 73 foot t..,A shore setback. <br />recommend a jading that the new plan does or does not cor.i orn co <br />,he 10 root de and 30 foot rear ,'a.-d setfacws of tht, LF.-1P di. tr;rt. <br />