CCP 11-09-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- - - --.----. -...-- . pl ,n..,i ng '"" .....i ..sian Heet:iJlq 6 11-04-92 Cl\SE #92-20. SIDE YARD IlEl'Ill\CK VARD\K::E Fell. DWELI.IH; EXPANSICIl. 1727 aIATm\M AVENUE. RICK 1\ND SllERILYN JmNSCIl Bergly reviewed the f:in:tin;Js listed in his l.~ 1:.: . 1. '!he lot is tapered, therefore the house is not parallel with the side lot lines. '!he house has a 6 foot jog in the west wall so that no portion of the dwelliIx1 would be nearer than 10 feet to the west lot line. 2. '!he house iJnmediately 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. Extentin:.J the dwelliIx1 4 feet to the west would encroadl on the side yard that is nearest to an entirely glass wWow-wall and an open deck on the house to the west. 4. It appears that the house could be exparrled to the rear and avoid the side yard encroachment. However, without know'iIx1 the interi= layout of the rooms in the house, the Planner cannot recammend this awroach. 5. '!he harrlwritten dimensions on the plan do not correspond with the Certificate of SUrvey d:i1nensions so the exact position of the house is not known and the requested variance may not be exactly four feet. 6. It appears that the site con:titions are not unique to this property. 'lbere are a rn.unber of unusually configured lots in this subdivision and throughout the City. Plarmer Bergly recommended the followiIx1 actions: . 1. '!hat the request f= a variance be denied. 2. '!hat the followiIx1 considerations be attached to the action as rationale for denial: a. '!hat the shape of the lot = the terrain does not prohibit reasonable use of the property. 'lbere are numerous other lots in the iJnmediate vicinity with similar lot configuration. b. '!he =iginal house was designed in a manner to avoid side lot encroachment, as were many others in the subdivision. c. '!here appears to be a possibility of ~ion 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. . 'lhe Applicant stated they did not need a 4 foot variance for the entire length of the ilrprovement area, only a p:>rtion of the area, due to the shape of the lot. The Applicant stated there would be no windows facing the neighbor and the neighbor had no objection to the construction plan. Mr:Q:aw IlIOVed, seconded by Erickson, to deny the r~est f= a variance, f= the reasons outlined in the Planner's report and that no hardship exists. All voted in favor. (5-0). .