Laserfiche WebLink
• #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 staff's <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 applicant 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 the 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 neighboring 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 east in <br /> order to meet the required rear yard setback. <br />