Laserfiche WebLink
57 <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 />Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have stated in their written statement that their plight is completely due to the fact <br />that the footprint of the house was not designed by them nor altered to its current configuration by them. <br />The house was constructed in 1960, prior to the codification of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the house <br />was purchased by the current owners in 2007. <br />The Johnsons are interested in improving their property by updating the curb appeal of the front of their <br />home by adding a front porch. The front porch would also support the City's goal of being a livable <br />community as it would 'invite and enhance neighborly relationships and a "Village feel". Mr. and Mrs. <br />Johnson state that they understand the intention of the City's Ordinance that allows a 5' encroachment is <br />meant to provide for a reasonably sized front porch, stoop and steps but in their situation, without the <br />variance, it would only allow 2'2" for a stoops with steps. The owners feel that having only 2' 2" available <br />for a landing and steeps creates both a practical difficulty in providing access and egress to their porch and <br />a safety issue of not having a full landing to their front porch, thereby severely limiting the use of their <br />proposed improvement. <br />In order to accomplish only a 5' encroachment of the stoop and steps into the front yard would mean that <br />the property owners would have to reduce the size of the proposed front porch from nearly 10' to less than <br />T, which they feel significantly limits their intent of having a useable living space in the front of their home. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Johnson feel that the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the <br />neighborhood. They stated that adding a front porch to the front of their home would definitely not detract <br />from the neighborhood, but rather would contribute to the overall openness and friendliness of the <br />community. <br />Economic considerations are not the only basis for the practical difficulties as previously described. The <br />variance would surely allow them to add value to their home but also to the surrounding neighborhood. <br />Staff received no comments regarding this project. <br />Attachments: <br />• Application and Written Statement <br />• Site Map with Building Elevations <br />• Photographs of Site <br />• Architectural Drawings of Front Porch <br />• Resolution 11-059; Approval for a Variance to front: yard setback for steps and stoop for 3408 <br />Maplewood Drive NLi <br />092720113408 Maplewood Drive Encroachment Variance council staff report <br />