Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />(~ <br /> <br />i. <br /> <br />4. It would pave most of the backyard. <br />5. It would create no privacy for the back yard. <br />6. The resulting family room would be so small that it would really be more of a den, not accommodating <br />our needs. <br />7. The resulting flow of traffic through the house would be poor. <br /> <br />We would most likely move to another home before we would build Option B, given the drawbacks. <br /> <br />Option C, on page 17, is better, but still requires a variance of 21 feet. This is near1y the same variance as <br />our preferred option, and does not produl;e a layout that functions nearty as well as Option A. The drawbacks: <br />1, Aesthetically, the house would generally appear less conventional. <br />2. There's no direct access from the mud room to the backyard. <br />3. The garage takes up more of the prime backyard space rather than the less-used side yard. <br />4. It would tend to invite guests to enter our home through the mud room. <br />5. The garage still cuts off a good part ofthe view, and limits the amount of window area in the family <br />room, <br /> <br />6, The resulting roof line would be unusual and more expensive. <br />7, The resulting flow of traffic through the house is not as good as in Option A. <br /> <br />Since it requires nearly the same variance, it makes more sense to seek our optimal plan rather than this one. <br /> <br />Addressina the hardShip criteria <br /> <br />I. Are the circumstances unique to the property? <br /> <br />Yes. As mentioned above, this property has the smallest building envelope in the area, and one of the <br />smallest house footprints in the area, and thus it cannot be developed to the same extent as others <br />in the same area and zoning. The lot does not function as a comer lot - never has, and almost <br />certainly never will. The pie-shaped lot makes for little rear buildability. Improving older homes that <br />have limited options is a hardship. <br /> <br />2, Does granting the variance keep with the spirit and intent of the code? <br /> <br />Yes. Mr. Hellegers has told us this refers to Section 5,D.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. We do not believe <br /> <br />Our proposal violates any of the intents of the R-1 zoning code, which is reprinted here for your <br /> <br />reference. <br /> <br />R-1 Single Family Residential District -- purpose: <br /> <br />a. To establish areas for the development of single family detached <br />housing at a maximum density of approximately 3 units per net acre <br />b. To reselVe development areas for single-family housing <br />c. To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses <br /> <br />7 <br />