Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Case No. 457-96: 8480 Pleasant View Drive • <br /> October 2, 1996 <br /> Page 2 <br /> g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br /> property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger <br /> of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values <br /> within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such <br /> restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to <br /> comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of <br /> such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of <br /> the variance. <br /> Attachments: Planning Application <br /> Zoning Map <br /> Plot Plan <br /> Floorplan <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Resolution 478-96 <br /> Background: <br /> The applicant is requesting a variance to replace an existing deck with a three-season <br /> porch on his property at 8480 Pleasant View Drive. The property is located on a cul-de- . <br /> sac; therefore, the lot is an irregular shape and restricted the placement of the home at the <br /> time of construction. The house was built in 1977, and is located 22 feet from the rear <br /> property line. The applicant has indicated in his letter that the setback requirements at the <br /> time were different. Staff has researched the Zoning Code and found that the rear setback <br /> requirement was 20 feet in 1960, and was changed to the current 30 feet in 1970. We <br /> understand that Mr. Gardner was the owner of the property when the house was built and <br /> did receive a building permit for construction of the house. The certificate of survey from <br /> 1977 shows the house in its present location. We do not know why the house was <br /> allowed to be built at 22 feet. The porch would replace a deck which was outside sliding <br /> glass doors from the dining room in the Gardners' home. The applicant has provided the <br /> City with floor plans for the house. (A copy of this area is attached.) They have indicated <br /> that there is no other practical way to arrange the doorway from the dining room except to <br /> the rear yard. <br /> The applicant has submitted a hardship statement regarding his request. Mr. Gardner has <br /> stated that he does have an irregular shaped lot which requires that the house be pushed <br /> backward toward the rear property line, and makes it difficult to add any improvements on <br /> the rear of the house. He notes that many of the neighbors have three-season porches, so <br /> allowing the variance would not grant a special privilege. Without the variance, he would <br /> be deprived of an improvement which many of his neighbors enjoy. He indicates that the <br /> porch would be screened from his neighbor's property by existing trees. • <br />