Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a site plan ofthe <br />property, and elevations of the existing and proposed structure (Attachment B), <br /> <br />Findinl!s of Fact <br /> <br />Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review: <br /> <br />General Findings <br />1. The lot meets the requirements ofthe R -1 Zoning District regulations. <br />2, The property is a comer lot and subject to the front yard 40 foot setback on two sides, <br />3, The existing dwelling does not meet all property line setbacks. The attached garage <br />encroaches nine feet into the front yard setback along Dellwood Avenue, <br />4, The proposed addition would encroach eight feet into the front yard setback along <br />Dellwood Avenue, While this would not decrease the existing structure's setback, a <br />variance is required because the footprint of the home within the encroachment is <br />. , <br />mcreasmg. <br />5. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear setback, <br />6, The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements. <br />7, The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations. <br />8, The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. <br />9, The existing home was not built according to approved plans. <br />10, Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-I Zone. <br />11. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the lOO-year flood plain, <br />wetlands, and easements, <br /> <br />Variance Findings: <br />12. A dwelling and addition are reasonable uses within the R-1 Zone, <br />13. The property itself is not unique in the City, The way the home is situated on the lot <br />could be considered unique, as it limits any alternative locations for the addition. <br />14, The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. <br />15, It is unlikely the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property or the <br />neighborhood, <br />16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on <br />economic considerations alone, <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (6-0) of Planning Case 08-002 <br />for a variance at 1249 Tiller Lane, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as <br />amended by the following six conditions in the January 9,2008, Planning Case Report, <br />I, The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by <br />the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by <br />the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />\\Metro-inetouslardenhi/lsIP/anninglP/anning Cases\2008108-002 Ettel Variance (PC Approved) \012808 - CC Report - Ette/ Varianceodoc <br /> <br />Page 2 of3 <br />