Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING REPORT <br />CASE MUMBER : 1313-81 <br />Page 2 <br />effect in the neighborhood. It would appear that the Newman' s have gore <br />through substantial effort to create an architecturally pleasing design <br />I the expansion with the existing design of the residence. <br />5. The variances to the setback could have been handled as a minor variance, <br />requiring written approval on the part of affected property owners ( those <br />contiguous and across the street) , but the variance to the land coverage <br />is not provided for as a minor variance procedure. Therefore, the <br />application is b eixig processed through the Planning Commission and Council. <br />In other words, having received written permission of the affected property <br />owners for the variances to the rear and side yard setback requirements, <br />the principal issue for the Planning Commission is that of the variance to <br />the land area coverage wherein a 31.5 percent coverage is requested <br />requiring a 1.5 percent variance. <br />