CC PACKET 05132014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

22 April 29, 2014 Page 4 The proposal would not change the use of the property or create a disruption to the Single-Family Residential District. The current use (and proposed use) as a single-family home is consistent with the City Code. Criteria met. b. Promote orderly development ond redevelopment; The proposal seeks to make an improvement to the property by allowing the property owners to add a partial second story addition that will tie into an existing staircase location. The proposed addition and front stoop will not be detrimental to the neighboring property, nor will it encroach further into the required front yard (corner side yard) setback. Criteria met. c. Provide adequate light, air, and access to praperty; The proposal would not negatively impact adequate light or air from reaching the property or adjacent properties. The proposed partial second story addition and front stoop will be constructed on the north end of the existing home, which is the furthest location for the closest adjoining property immediately to the south . Criteria met. d. Prevent congestion in the public streets; The proposal will have no impact on the amount of congestion in the public street . 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 partial second story addition as proposed would not impact/increase the amount of impervious surface on the property. The partial second story addition will meet the height and massing (FAR) requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed partial second story addition will not encroach into the required front yard (corner side yard) setback any more than existing conditions. Criteria met. f. Provide for compatibility of different land uses; CONCLUSIONS The proposal will not result in a change of land use, nor will it conflict with adjacent land uses. Criteria met. As the existing Zoning Ordinance currently is written, the Applicant is left with a very small area for which a home could be constructed on the property and meet the setback regulations of the R1 Zoning District (See Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material). The existing home does not meet the required corner side yard (front yard) setback as it currently sits on the property, and therefore any addition (expansion) of the home requires the issuance of a variance . The Applicant's desire to improve their property and add a partial second story addition and front stoop to increase the living space for their family is reasonable, especially since the home was constructed in 1960 and needs (spatial needs) of a family has changed of the past 50+ years. Furthermore, when the lot was originally platted, the property boundaries were done so in a manner that reduces the lot width by 5-feet, unlike those lots in the immediate vicinity (whether on purpose or not). This unique circumstance already sets the Applicants at a disadvantage over similar lots within the same plat, as their existing corner side yard (front yard) setback is immediately reduced (by 5-feet). While a "do nothing" alternative does exist, 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