08-01-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tlIrthcr cast. This results in a Il-ont yard structure setback of approximately 49 il2 lj---far in excess of the 40 n that is the City's generic lj.ont-yard setback. Proceeding independently since thG July 11 meeting, the City Planner (acting as Zoning Administrator) has issued a declaration that a 45 n setback is approptiate f,)r my fj'ont yard, and that this setback cannot be encroached upon by any portion of the structure, including decks. Unl,)j'tunatcly, this amount of setback now rcnders my revised site plan unworkable, due to a wrap-around deck on thc northeast comer of an upper floor, which would extend approximately 7 1/2 leet eastward into the lhmt yard---to a point 42 tlli.Otll the Jj'ont properly line. It is my understanding that ordimuily, such a deck is allowed to project into a setback area. J also lind it interesting to note that the newly-constructed house next door (3433 Lake Johanna Blvd) was not subject to any similar setback requirement as to distance or exclusion of decks. This 45-I,)!)t Ij.ont yard setback determination is said 10 have been based on review of the existing structures along Lake Johanna Boulevard between County Road E and Lake Lane. Such an analysis must have been interesting, (although ofacaclcmic intercst only, since tbc applicable zoning code text refers to the "prevailing setback in the immediate vicinity" only) as it would have revealed building setbacks ranging !i'om over 50 Ii to under 10 Ii. This analysis would also ha',.'-.; revealed that ill Inany cases, ground-level or elevated decks extend considerat-.:1y into the fi-ont yards. The pleasant variation of the neighborhood alignment is further complicated by the J\l(:t that the l.akc Johanna Boulevard right-ol~\Vay width is not of uniicJrll1 width. Consequently, even if all lh" structures were 10 hal"; the same setback ij.om the right-ol~way line, the structures still would not be in alignment. To hring this convoluted proceeding to a detinite conclusion, I am requesting that the Planning COlnmission approve a variance t'l-Jr an IS ft rear yarel setback, and recognize that a generic front y,lrcl sethack of 40 n is ::lPJ11ic(1hk~. or al1crnativelYl a 45 ft selLae]\: \Vilh the nOlll1ally-permissiblc 6 It deck encroachment. If the Pl~1l1l1ing C'ommission denies this renlainipg variance request, I will of course adjust 111Y building plans to c()nj~)nl1 in every detail to the interesting cOlnbinatit)J1 of ~;ctbacks the City hus f,mmtlatcd ]()r thi" property. Ironically, one possible outcome is that 1 could construct a de{uclu.:,d gar,lge within 10 n qfthc rear lot line without a variance, ev(;n though 1 an1 only asking in my variance application for penl1ission ~'() build at an 1811 setback. Thank youl{,r you" continued attention to lhis matter, ] Icok tClrward to :.esolution of this rehi?lg;lJil1Ce ,'equest at your urcol1lin~ meeting. /y\,t /~ Richurd Gonzalez