PL PACKET 03192019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 19, 2019 Page 3 A. Front Yard Setback Variance – Harding Street NE. The home to the north of the subject parcel is set back from Harding Street at 30.3 feet. The required front yard setback for the R‐1 District is 30 feet. As noted above, the existing home on the property is currently at approximately 30 feet, meeting the required setback. The applicants propose to construct living space and a front entry/porch that would encroach 7.7 feet into the required front yard. The zoning ordinance sets out a series of criteria for a request to qualify for variance consideration. Those criteria are found in §152.245, (C) Evidence of the Zoning Chapter, and are included in this report for reference below. The criteria can be summarized as whether there are unique conditions on the property that contribute to creation of a practical difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable use – reasonable use is often thought of as one that would be common and acceptable in the area. Variances may not be entirely economic in nature, nor be the result of the actions of the applicant. In this case, the applicants suggest that there are conditions that meet the required criteria. First, there is a wide variety of street setback distances on Harding, and in the surrounding neighborhoods. On the subject property’s block, Harding Street setbacks range from as little as 15 feet to more than 70 feet. This reflects a history of accommodating variability in the area. Second, the applicants note that for corner lots – even while they are seeking a variance to the south side, buildable area is severely limited. While there would be area to expand behind the home, any such expansion would impact the amount of open rear yard space on the lot. The applicants further suggest that the requested encroachment will permit them to upgrade the look of the house from the street, retaining or enhancing neighborhood character as a result. The front elevation incorporates a combination of stone, shake, and lapped siding, and continues the single‐story rambler pattern common to the area. The proposed design does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. For any variance, the underlying requirement must be that the proposed use of property is reasonable, that is, a condition that most would presume to be a common and expected use of property. If so, the next test is whether unique conditions exist on the property, and whether those conditions create “practical difficulties” in using the property reasonably. In this case, the expansion to the west (front) appears to be reasonable – it retains and enhances the “curb appeal” of the property in the context of the neighborhood, and is in character with other neighboring properties. Adding the porch and living space accommodate reinvestment in the property, an important goal of the City’s comprehensive planning. While a rear‐yard addition would accomplish the reinvestment objective, it would not improve the neighborhood character. Moreover, expansion to the north (toward the side property line) would be possible, but would create a greater potential impact on the adjoining property. As such, the