PL PACKET 10232017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 Page 2 1 Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 2 3 City Planner Breanne Rothstein reviewed the City Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. 4 The applicant (David and Mary Friend) is requesting a variance to construct a deck that would 5 project 17.5 feet into the required rear yard setback to result in a rear yard depth of 7.5 feet. The 6 applicant’s request for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow for the construction of the 7 deck addition is not reasonable, per the findings listed in City Code. Therefore, staff 8 recommends denial of the variance to encroach into the rear yard setback. 9 10 The applicant’s address is 3113 Edward St. NE and the existing land use/zoning is Low Density 11 Residential/zoned: R-1 Single Family Residential as are the surrounding land use/zoning. 12 13 Ms. Rothstein indicated the property on a map and summarized the overview of the project. Rear 14 yard setback requirement in the R-1 Single Family Residential District is 25 feet, proposal is to 15 construct a deck expanding from the rear of the existing house, and request for a 17.5-foot 16 variance from the 25’ rear yard setback to create a rear yard setback that is 7.5 feet. Drawings of 17 the deck plans were provided for Commission review. Ms. Rothstein reviewed the variance 18 criteria noting: 19 20 • Subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section – Criterion met. 21 • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by 22 the zoning code – Criterion not met. 23 • The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not 24 created by the property owner – Criterion not met. 25 • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality – Criterion 26 met. 27 • Economic considerations alone are not the basis of practical difficulties – Criterion not 28 met. 29 • The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use 30 plan – Criterion not met. 31 • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 32 zoning code – Criterion not met. 33 34 Ms. Rothstein provided Staff’s recommendation as the Applicant’s request for a variance 35 from the rear yard setback to allow for the construction of the deck addition is not 36 reasonable, per the findings listed in City Code. Staff recommends denial of the variance to 37 encroach into the rear yard setback. 38 39 Commissioner Foster asked if the Applicants were the original builders of the house and Ms. 40 Rothstein stated she does not know. 41 42 Commissioner Papatola asked if the request was for a patio would it be allowed. Ms. 43 Rothstein stated a patio is not subject to a 25-foot setback. Ms. Rothstein stated she had 44 conversations with the contractor and offered some options which a patio is one option. A 45 detached deck would be subject to a five-foot setback. Commissioner Papatola’s second 46 2