PCAgenda_04Aug24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Before the variance application was presented to the City, Staff discussed several other options with the architect that would meet the lot coverage allowance or minimize the excess lot coverage: • • Building "up," i.e. adding a second story -significant increase in cost • Eliminating the concrete patio at the rear of the house (690 square feet) -loss of an important amenity Analysis a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public interest. Staff finds that the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public interest. b. That the granting of the variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. Staff finds that the granting of this variance will not substantially diminish or impair property values. c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Staff finds that the granting of this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The home presently has a footprint of 1660 square feet, which is above average for the City. There is a detached double garage, separated from the house by • more than 20 feet. The existing floor plan presents some inconveniences to the owner's family, including lack of bedroom and bathroom space. d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Staff finds that the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties. The addition will not be any closer to the house on the west than the house is now. The property to the north is a large double lot; the house on that property is over 60 feet from the closest corner of the proposed addition. e. That the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; Staff finds that the variance will not impair the orderly use of the public streets. f. That the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; Staff finds that the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from • mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were carried out. Falcon Heights Planning Commission August 24, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Staff report on a lot coverage variance request at 1885 Asbury Street