Laserfiche WebLink
'il <br />. �O� ♦O <br /> C ITY OF ORON <br /> RESOLUT'ION OF THE CITY COU CIL <br /> ��'� ��,� N o. 6 6 3 $ �'�� <br /> kESHO� <br /> A8. Applicant'is proposing to meet the required 50' rear yard setback. The proposed 0' <br /> stoop/35' ouse front setback is consistent with the street setbacks of the newer ho es <br /> directly to the south and across Keene Avenue. The 14' setback from the south side ot <br /> line is mo typical of a setback that would be found in a neighborhood of similar-siz�ci <br /> 1/3-1/2 acre lots. The proposed house plans have been revised to a lookout rather thanl a <br /> walkout de�ign in order to establish the lowest level as a basement and avoid a varian�e <br /> for the hou�e being defined as three stories where only 2-1/2 stories are allowed. <br /> A9. The applic�nt's surveyor failed to account for the deck in his structural covera �I <br /> calculation. Because the top of the deck railing is more than 6 feet above existing grad , <br /> the deck counts toward structural coverage, yielding 16.6% where only 15% is allowe . <br /> This results�n the need far a lot coverage variance. 'i <br /> A10. The lot covei�age variance is justifiable based on the following: �i <br /> - The proposed deck will be minimally visible from Dickenson Street due to the'�, <br /> topography of the site, and hidden from view from Keene Avenue and the southerly�'�, <br /> neighbor by virtue of its location relative to the house; �, <br /> - There was more structural coverage on this site in 2008 than is proposed today; and <br /> - While the de�k could be built lower, that would require an immediate step down of '�� <br /> approximately,two feet from the door accessing the deck, which should be avoided from ', <br /> a safety and practicality standpoint, and is a practical difficulty. <br /> A11. In consideringlthis application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and �'i <br /> recommendatidn of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances I <br /> upon the healtl�, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic �� <br /> conditions, lighrt and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values �'�� <br /> of property in tl�e surrounding area. �'�� <br /> VARIANCE ANALYSIS: �I <br /> B 1. "Variances shall'only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes _ '� <br /> and intent of the'prdinance . . . ." Single family homes and the associated amenities are �I <br /> permitted uses i� the RR-1B district. The requested variances if granted would allow � <br /> construction of a single family home on the property. I <br /> B2. "Variances shall' only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the �'�, <br /> comprehensive pllan." The proposed new residence structure is consistent with the �' <br /> comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. <br /> �'i <br /> i <br /> Page 3 of 7 � <br /> 'll �I <br /> � i <br /> I <br />