CCP 11-09-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

------- ----- planning n .....; ....ton Meeting 6 11-04-92 Cl\SE #92-20. SIDE'\OOID SE1'Bl\CK Vl\lUAN::E PeR ~ EXPANSION. 1727 amTm\M AVENUE. RICK AND SHERILYN JmNSCIl Bergly revie!wed the fWings listed in his report: . 1. '!he lot is tapere:i, therefore the house is not parallel with the side lot lines. '!be house has a 6 foot jog in the west wall so that no portion of the dwelling would be nearer than 10 feet to the west lot line. 2. '!he house illImediately to the west has an identical jog. It appears that it has been exparrled to the rear to avoid encroachment on the side yard. 3. E:xtendin:J the dwelling 4 feet to the west would encroach on the side yard that is nearest to an entirely glass wWow-wal1 arrl an open deck on the house to the west. 4. It appears that the house could be expaOOed to the rear arrl avoid the side yard encroachment. However, without lmowing the interior layout of the rooms in the house, the Planner cannot recammend this approach. 5. The handwritten dimensions on the plan do not =espond with the Certificate of survey dimensions so the exact p:>sition of the house is not known arrl the requested variance may not be exactly four feet. 6. It appears that the site corrlitions are not unique to this property. There are a number of unusually configured lots in this su1xli vision arrl throughout the City. Plarmer Bergly recamrnended the following actions: 1. That the request for a variance be denied. . 2. That the following considerations be attached to the action as rationale for denial: a. That the shape of the lot or the terrain does not prohibit reasonable use of the property. There are numerous other lots in the immediate vicinity with similar lot configuration. b. '!he original house was designed in a manner to avoid side lot encroachment, as were many others in the subdivision. c. There appears to be a possibility of expansion to the rear that could be done without a variance. McGraw stated that to grant a variance the Applicant is required to show hardship. He asked the applicant if there is an identifiable hardship. . '!he Applicant stated they did not need a 4 foot variance for the entire length of the illlprovement area, only a portion of the area, clue to the shape of the lot. The A[:plicant stated there would be no windows facing the neighbor and the neighbor had no objection to the construction plan. McGraw moved, seconded by Erickson, to deny the request for a variance, for the reasons outlined in the Planner's report arrl that no hardship exists. All voted in favor. (5-0) . .