Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #16-3814 <br />March 15, 2016 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br /> <br />variance are to remove the deck, or have it step down approximately 1.5 feet (3 steps) <br />immediately at the porch door. Staff does not recommend granting a variance for lot <br />coverage for a new home where there are opportunities for an alternate design. <br /> <br />Additional Notes <br />Driveways are required to be located at least 100 feet from an intersection per Code <br />Section 18-136(e). The proposed driveway is located approximately 40 feet south of the <br />Dickenson/Keene intersection. Given that there are only 3 other homes on Keene Avenue <br />and no possible way for that to become a through road or add more homes, this is likely <br />not a significant concern, subject to review by the Public Works Director. <br /> <br />Practical Difficulties Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as <br />Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> <br />Neighbor Acknowledgements <br />Applicant has provided acknowledgements from the adjacent property owner to the south <br />and the property owner to the east across Keene Avenue, indicating they have seen the <br />proposed plans. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use <br />the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official <br />control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the lot area and width variances, as <br />well as the setback variances, if granted will not alter the essential character of <br />the neighborhood? <br />3. Does Planning Commission find justification for granting a structural lot <br />coverage variance for this new construction? <br />4. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested or in <br />some other manner or configuration are justified, does the Commission find it <br />necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the <br />granting of the variances? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the <br />variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. If Planning <br />Commission finds that the practical difficulties test is not met for one or more of the <br />requested variances, a recommendation for denial, partial denial, or tabling for revisions, <br />may be appropriate. Options for action include: <br />1) Recommend approval (with or without specific conditions). <br />2) Recommend partial approval (specify) <br />3) Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br />4) Table for further information or revisions – specify what information or changes <br />are desired. <br />5) Other. <br /> <br />Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 <br />File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24]