Laserfiche WebLink
� � ,, � <br /> FILE#11-3508 <br /> 14 June 2011 <br /> • • Page 4 of 4 <br /> function or convenience such as the length of the porch, the re-location of the wooden stoop, <br /> and the garden shed. The proposed connecting addition will also serve as a new vestibule or <br /> front entrance. Is it necessary for the new covered porch to extend the entire length of the <br /> home so that both entrances on the front of the home have covered access? While the removal <br /> of the front door and wobden stoop from the front reduces the encroachment into the front • <br /> yard, the new encroachment created by moving the door and stoop to the east side appears to <br /> serve merely as a convenience. The proposed shed/addition to the rear of the garage could be <br /> located to a conforming location elsewhere on the property as it is intended for storage of <br /> gardening and lawn moving equipment and is not integral to the functionality of the garage. <br /> Lastly, the applicant's project will result in the removal of the roof of the existing home (and <br /> garage?) and may result in the removal of one or more exterior walls and/or existing main floor. <br /> Issues for Consideration � <br /> 1. Can the existing foundation support the additions? Should an engineer's opinion on the <br /> foundation be required? Prior to City Council review? Prior to the issuance of a building <br /> permit? <br /> 2. If the foundation cannot support the additions and the project becomes a total rebuild, <br /> does the scope of the project change? Should the Planning Commission review the <br /> application again? Should the home be moved to the conforming location on the - <br /> property? <br /> 3. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 4. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 5. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested setback variances? � <br /> 6. The survey illustrates an existing encroachment into the property to the west with <br /> a paver patio area. Should the encroachment be removed in conjunction with the <br /> request? <br /> �7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> � Planning Staff recommendations are as follows: <br /> 1. Approval of the front yard setback variance to construct the connecting addition <br /> between the garage and the home; � <br />' 2. Approval of the principal structure side setback variance resulting from the connection <br /> of the garage and home; � <br /> 3. Approval of the front yard setback variance for the covered porch as proposed; <br /> 4. Approval of the second story additions over the existing home and the new connecting � <br /> addition; <br /> . 5. Denial of the front yard setback variance in order to re-locate the eastern, front door <br /> and stoop and further recommends that the door and stoop be removed from the plan <br /> altogether; <br /> 6. Denial of the front and side yard setback�variances to construct the shed/garage <br /> addition; • <br /> 7. Removal of the patio encroachment into the property to the west; and <br /> 8. Require an engineer's opinion to determine whether the existing foundation is able to <br /> support the additions as proposed prior to City Council review of the request. <br />