Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF REPORT <br /> To: Planning Commission <br /> From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager <br /> Date: September 20, 2011 <br /> Subject: 3408 Maplewood Drive — Variance to Front Yard Setback for Porch and Stoop <br /> Requested Action: Public Hearing <br /> Date Application Received: August 18, 2011 <br /> Property Address: 3408 Maplewood Drive <br /> Zoning District: R1 <br /> 60-Day Expires: October 17, 2011 <br /> Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent: No <br /> Future Action: Council consideration and action at September 27, 2011 Council Meeting <br /> Background: Carri Sandwick of Albertsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd.,met with Staff to discuss the <br /> possibility of obtaining an encroachment variance for her clients, the owners of 3408 Maplewood Drive, <br /> who would like to add a front porch to their home. Ms. Sandwick and the property owners,Barbara and <br /> Culley Johnson,met with the Planning Commission on August 16,2011 in a concept review. <br /> Ms. Sandwick reported that an addition of a front porch to their home is part of a renovation project that <br /> they are planning for the front of their home. Their garage extends beyond the front of the house by <br /> approximately 10 feet. The home owners are proposing to fill in that space from the side of the garage to <br /> the end of the house with a 9' 11.5" x 30' (approx.300SF) enclosed screen porch. As presented on the site <br /> plans,it does appear that the garage currently encroaches approximately 2' 10" feet into the front yard <br /> setback and the proposed front porch will encroach into the front yard setback as well. <br /> The owners are proposing to add a front stoop and steps to the proposed front porch. This structure will <br /> extend another five feet into the front yard setback. The front stoop and steps are necessary in order to <br /> enter and exit the proposed front porch and home. <br /> Analysis: <br /> The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would <br /> cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; <br /> that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic <br /> considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties (City Code §152.245(C)). <br /> 092020113408 MaplewooJ b ive hncroachrrient Variaiice.doc <br />