Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . 5. The shape and size of the lot do not offer the owners the full <br /> property rights enjoyed by others in the R-l District. The <br /> "building envelope" is considerably smaller than today's standard <br /> and the shape does not allow reasonable development. <br /> 6. Various alternatives were thoroughly investigated by the <br /> applicants' architect and City staff. Other alternatives would <br /> require either side yard or front yard variances that would be more <br /> objectionable than the proposed approach. <br /> 7. The City encourages upgrading of property. On the subject lot, <br /> even if the existing structure were completely removed, the size <br /> and shape of the building envelope would not allow development at <br /> current home standards. <br /> 8. The adjoining lot to the north has a garage on the south end of the <br /> house, so the requested variance will not impact the "living" <br /> portion of the neighboring property. In fact, the proposed garage <br /> could not be seen from that home. The existing garage side yard <br /> setback of 4.7 feet is maintained. <br /> 9. The proposed garage has a corner projecting into the front yard. <br /> Visually, this is less of an obtrusion than with the flat face of <br /> the garage facing the street. It also creates more usable space in <br /> the front yard, with the driveway placed parallel with the north <br /> . lot 1 ine. The angled garage also allows two cars to be parked in <br /> the driveway completely on the applicants' lot. <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS: <br /> Most of the considerations discussed above point to the unusual problem <br /> created by the shape and size of the subject lot and the generally lower <br /> standards of many nearby lots. I recommend that the proposed variance <br /> be granted for the following specific reasons: <br /> l. The lot is below the current standards in terms of area, width and <br /> shape. <br /> 2. The placement of the existing house on the lot does not allow a <br /> two-car garage to be constructed without a variance. <br /> 3. Alternatives have been thoroughly investigated, none of which would <br /> require lesser variances than the one proposed. <br /> 4. The proposed variance does not adversely impact adjoining <br /> properties due to the orientation of both inside and outside living <br /> spaces. <br /> 5. The configuration of the lot prevents the applicant from enjoying <br /> the property rights available to others in the same zoning district <br /> . on lots which do not have the unusual configuration. <br /> 11100 Case #90-03 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br />