Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />«^04-3044 <br />August 16,2004 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />However, hardship also references “reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed <br />by the official controls ”; this being the 30 ’ required rear yard setback. It is staffs <br />opinion that the property owner has reasonable use, especially since the addition can be <br />achieved within the 30 ’ rear yard setback, recognizing the layout of the existing and <br />proposed improvements will not fit together as well or grading may be required. The <br />hardships mentioned above may hold more validity if the applieant had no other options <br />for placement of the proposed addition, bearing in mind that the layout of the existing <br />house is not considered a valid hardship as it isn’t something inherent to the land. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Are the hardships mentioned valid enough to grant variance approval, even though <br />the applicant could meet the 30 ’ required setback if grading were done and the <br />interior spaces were re-designed? <br />2. Does the sloping topography, by itself, offer a valid hardship? Or, could the grading <br />necessary to meet tlie 30' setback be minor enough to require it? <br />3. Should it be relevant that the jogged rear property line was caused by separate <br />acquisition of the east 10 feet of the neigliboring lot (the most western 10 ’ in the rear <br />yard was not a part of the original platted lots)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Denial of the requested variance as the addition could be moved 10 ’ to the east in order to <br />meet the 30 ’ rear yard setback. <br />Approval of the requested variance only if you find that the sloping topography alone <br />constitutes a hardship restricting the applicant from moving the addition 10 ’ to the cast in <br />order to meet the required rear yard setback. <br />1