Laserfiche WebLink
7 r. � <br /> FILE#11-3508 <br /> 14 June 2011 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> front yard setback area. The connecting addition is proposed to provide a connection between <br /> the home and detached garage as well as allow for a place to construct a legal (building code) <br /> stair to access the basement and 2"d story. Additionally, the garden shed/addition to the rear of <br /> the garage technically requires a front yard setback variance as it is proposed to be located <br /> within the required 50 foot,front yard setback as well. Due to the location of the home on the <br /> property, any improvement to the existing structure which consists of an expansion of the <br /> building envelope requires variances from the zoning code setback requirements. <br /> Side Yard Setback Variance <br /> The applicant stated that their proposal to connect the home and detached garage is primarily <br /> for safety purposes. Although it would not further encroach into the east side setback than the <br /> existing detached garage,this connection of the garage and home would result in a non- <br /> conforming principal structure setback of 2.2 feet on the east side lot line. The proposed <br /> shed/garage addition will also encroach into the 30 foot side yard setback area. <br /> Updated Variance Analysis , <br /> As the planning commission is aware, there have been multiple changes to law regarding how a <br /> municipality must review an application for a variance. The "undue hardship" analysis has been <br /> • replaced with the "practical difficulties" analysis. On.yo"ur agenda this month is a proposed <br /> zoning code text amendment intended to update the ordinance to ensure that it conforms to <br /> the statutory analysis of practical difficulties. While the current code directs staff, planning <br /> commission and the council to perform a "hardship" analysis; this application will actually be . <br /> viewed consistent with the new practical difficulties analysis. <br /> Staff Analysis <br /> The applicants' property is nonconforming with respect to area and width. The existing home is <br /> located entirely within the required 50 foot front yard setback. The applicant is proposing <br /> additions to the existing home which they believe will make the property safer and more <br /> � functional. The applicant's property is a 0.5± acre lot within a small-lot neighborhood (to the <br /> south, east and west) which exists in a 2 acre zoning district. Larger acreage lots exist to the <br /> north, directly across Dickenson Street. The homes on the properties to the north are set back <br /> at least 50 feet from Dickenson and it doesn't appear these homes would be adversely impacted <br /> by the applicant's proposal. There would appear to be no additional impact from this proposal � <br /> on the adjacent property to the west. The proposed additions do not appear to limit the light, <br /> air and open space currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. <br /> The applicant's variance requests may be r.easonable considering the front property line is 23 <br /> feet from the edge of the blacktop on Dickenson Street for a total setback from the street of <br /> approximately 31 feet. The proposed additions will not increase beyond the existing <br /> , encroachment into the front yard. The applicants' request results in minimal negative impact of <br /> adjacent properties. Staff finds the location of the existing home and the size of the propertjr <br /> creates a unique circumstance not created by the applicants; granting the applicant's request is <br /> in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; and will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood. If a new home were to be constructed on the property it would <br /> appear that all of the required setbacks could be met. A 2,750 square foot legal building <br /> envelope can be identified on the property. <br /> However, there are portions of the applicant's request that may serve solely as an aesthetic <br />