1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

t I Norris Variance Planning Case No. 550-9 April 7, 1999 Page 2 The subject property is one of several side by side twin homes that were built in the mid-1960s on the east side of Raymond Avenue. All of the lots are 100 feet wide which leaves little room for expa�lsion possibilities. The applicant has already expanded out the back of the house; creating additionai living space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pool, which prohibits any further expansion in this area. � Analys�s: For the Planning C�mmission to grant a variar�ce, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1 i 25.42, 5ubdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in ihose cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical di�iculties to the �roperty owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptronal or extraordinary circumstances apply to the p�operly which does not apply generally to other properties in the sa»re zone o� vicinity and result, f�om Zot size or shape, topogr�aphy or other circumstances over which the owners of tlae p�operty since the effective date her�eof have had no control. The circumstance which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is ti�e fact that the lot which su orts a twinhame is onl 100 feet wide--minimum width %r `�� , Pp � Y ; I;:`' zoning requirements. Each unit, assucning the building is built centered on the lot, has fifty feet of lot to work with. Because these buitdings were built to accomtnodate the canstruction of a garage, the living space is limited to a maximum width of about 29 feet. Because of a recent addition to the rear, a dec�C and a beiow-ground pooI, any further expansion offthe rear of the home is not feasible. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprrve the applicant of raghts comrrtonly enjoyed by other properties rn the same district under the teYms of this Title. If ihe minimum setback for living spac� would b� enforced, the applicani would not be prevented from adding bedroom space 6ehind ihe garage because ihe bedroom co�ald be constructied 11 feet wide instead of 16 feet, and lengthened an additionat by five feet #o compensate. The resulting expansion would be the same size, a(though the back would extend beyand ti�e current rear-line of the house. c. ThaP the specicrl conditians or ciYCUmsBances do noZ result from the acPions of the applicant. While the action for which the appIicant is seelc�n� the varianc� is wholly of his own proposing, ihe intent is to ma�cimize tlle use of the laiid io provide a much-needed living '. ,:;; space expansion while pr�serving as much of the remaining back yard space as possible. - _ �