PCAgenda_94Feb28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'x"012 ~3? 5501 DSII, INC. C~j 003005 Wlgvrlllarian~ces 2~$/~4 2 . • The existing house is only $hghtiy non-conforming with respect to the front and rear setbacks, both of wfiirtt are s~-out 28 fast now, compared to 30 feet r~aquired bar ordinance. Many of the homes an the block between Asbury and Snelling are in the Sarre sihaation and have front and rear setbacks slightly less than the 30 feet required, but ap appear to be at least 25 feot. Mane are as small as the 1 ~.`-7" setback guested by the applicanrts hers. The nearby corner houses on Garden Street face perpendicular to the side streets and are sepgrated by about 14 feet. But this is a side yard condition, not a rear yard. ! The existing detached game conforms to the re~treci setbacks. it is set balk 1;'-9' and l~'-7" from the side and roar yards respectively. The required setback for bath situ and rear is 5 feet. The "rear 21]96" rule from §9-x.04 Surd. i tc},which v~uld allow a 1 foot setback, does not apply here. It only apples if there is an alley at the rear of the lot. e The Proposed project wi{I result in the following: 1 } The rear setback for the house wtlE be reduced from 28'-7" dawn to 14'-7", requiring a substarrtial variance from the mired 30 fEet. The proposed ition iS tv~ stories till, which mak8s the situation even moria intrusive. 2) The side setback for the new garage will be reduced from 6'-9" to 2'-9", also requiring a variance, but a small one, from the required 5 fee#. 3} The rear 5etbadk for the new garage wiM be reduced from 8'-~' to 5"-7" - na variance needed 4} The front setback for the house wiN rx~t change - na variance needed. • Many of the its on this bNock are of similar size to the Wiger lot and face the same constraunts: adequate width, but less than adequate depth or area. Some lots in the area have be+1~n taomt~ined or rsearranged to malke larger lots, inclut'~ng the neighboring let at 1789 Asbury. Even on the smaNer lots, the homes and garages in the immediate vic~riity appearto follow a common pattern: homes set back almost 30 feet bath front anti rear, garages set balk a feet side end rem: • Even though the Wiger lo# is small, there is room to expand an the south side of ths- house without needing s subs~antistl variances. The applicants have chosen inste2tid to expand ~ the wart, into the rear yard. While the existing house may pose some difficu~ies in expanding to the south, this has to be weighed against the public interest in s+ncraaGhing into the setback areas. The rear yards on this bkadc are aikeady shallow and the houses seem very close to one another. To allow an enoraachmerrt other than a garage woutti break the pattern tha# exists in these rear yards, and set a negative precedent.