CC PACKET 12092014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 25, 2014 Page 3 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; The property owners propose to make a significant addition to the existing home. The first floor and basement addition will nearly double the size of the existing home and nearly double the depth of the home along the side that does not conform to the side setback. The property is currently used as a single-family residential use and will continue to be used as such with the proposed addition. While the proposed use of the property is reasonable, the size and shape of the addition raises some questions. It appears that an addition could be made that would require a lesser variance, with less impact on the closest neighbor (to the north). No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that such a large addition, and one that continues the non-conforming side setback, is critical to the reasonable use of the property as a single family home, as opposed to a mere inconvenience. The expansion however, does meet all other provisions of the City Code, including lot area, floor area ratio, and impervious surface coverage. Criteria met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The existing home, constructed in 1965, does not meet the setback requirements of the Rl District; therefore any addition (expansion) of the existing home requires the issuance of a variance. The property was platted decades ago, and the existing ordinance has been in effect well before the Applicants purchased the home. The need for the variance was not created by the property owner. As shown in Exhibit A: Location Map, the property is actually larger than most lots in the immediate vicinity. However, the width of the lot (80 feet) is slightly narrower than most other lots in the neighborhood (81-91 feet). This creates a unique situation in that the lot is narrower than similar properties in the vicinity. Further, the house was constructed in its current location prior to the requirements of the existing ordinance making it necessary for the owners to receive a variance for any addition to the home. Criteria met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The existing home was constructed in 1965 and is true to the style of that decade, as are majority of the homes within the immediate neighborhood. The proposed addition will be designed in a manner that maintains the overall character of the home and the locality. The only change to the front fa~ade of the home is a new eyebrow roof in the center of the first story. The new rear elevation appears to be consistent with the style and scale of the existing home and those in the immediate area . Criteria met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The basis for the practical difficulties is that the home is already 7 .2 feet from the side lot line and does not allow for expansion of the existing home in a way that would comply with the Zoning Code (no matter where the addition would occur). No other alternative for adding onto the home, regardless of economic impact to the property owners, would avoid having to apply for a variance (even one that was further from the side lot lines). It does not appear that economic considerations alone are the basis of the practical difficulties. Criteria met. 91