CC PACKET 11122013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

44 November 4, 2013 Page 4 'rhe proposal would not negatively impact adequate light or air from reaching the property or adjacent properties. The proposed steps will extend four feet from the side of the garage and be nine feet high. In addition, the space below the steps will not be enclosed, allowing light and air to pass through the steps and around the posts. Although the steps will be within the required setback from the side lot line, they should not prevent adequate light or air from reaching adjacent property, which is the garage side of the neighboring home. Criteria met. d. prevent congestion in the public streets; The proposal will have no impact oil the amount of congestion in the public sheet. Criteria met. e. prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; Allowing the requested variance will not result in overcrowding of the land or an Undue concentration of structures. The steps would not impact the amount of impervious surface on the property. The steps will not be higher than the existing principal structure and are not significant in terms of massing. Although the steps will be within the required setback from the side lot line, they should not result in an overcrowding of structures. The Applicant has indicated to staff that the adjacent property owners have also stated his support for the proposed variance. Criteria met. f provide for compatibility of different land uses; The proposal will not result in a change of land use, nor will it conflict with adjacent land uses. Criteria met. CONCLUSIONS If the existing home were located further off of the side lot tine than it is today, the reality is that the stairway could have been constructed without the need for a variance, thus resulting in the same visual impression within the neighborhood. While alternatives do exist for locating the steps on the property in such a way that would not require the need for a variance, staff feels the Applicants' request for a variance is "reasonable" given the limitation of the other alternatives, and that the variance will not adversely affect the surrounding property or the Applicants' property. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. The Applicant appears to have provided enough information for the City Council to approve or deny the request. Should the City Council request additional information from the Applicant, the City Council should continue the meeting until a later time. 2. Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variance. In the event of a vote for approval (with or without conditions), the City Council may refer to Exhibit D and may modify the draft resolution for approval to include any conditions that it deems necessary. 3. Denial of the Variance. In the event the City Council denies of the requested variance, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution to be brought back at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit I3: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Site Photos Exhibit D: Draft Resolution of Approval