05-23-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A. The existing house location and scope of the proposed improvements does not allow moving the house to meet setback requirements. B. Existing vegetation screening and adequate distances to neighboring residence structures act to minimize any visual impact ot the root expansion. C. Applicant has removed a pre-existing deck and proposes to replace it with a new deck or bedroom addition. The submitted 1976 survey does not match the existing footprint. Absent further information. Planning Commission recommends that only the existing footprint be approved for roof expansion. 4. Applicant has now’ provided an updated survey confirming that the side setback to the proposed deck/bedroom expansion is 29.0’, requiring a 1.0 or 3% side setback variance. The hardship for granting of such variance is the location of the existing house, the fact that a deck previously existed in this location, and that whether this is a deck or room expansion, it is proposed to be roofed, and elimination of said roof portion would be incompatible with the proposed addition. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the v,^iiance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Paee 2 of 5