04-07-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 expansion possibilities. The applicant has already expanded out the back of the house, creating additional living space, and has constructed a deck and a below-ground pool, which prohibits any further expansion in this area. Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The circumstance which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is the • fact that the lot, which supports a twinhome, is only 100 feet wide--minimum width for zoning requirements. Each unit, assuming the building is built centered on the lot, has fifty feet of lot to work with. Because these buildings were built to accommodate the construction 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 deck and a below-ground pool, any further expansion off the rear of the home is not feasible. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. If the minimum setback for living space would be enforced, the applicant would not be prevented from adding bedroom space behind the garage because the bedroom could be constructed 11 feet wide instead of 16 feet, and lengthened an additional by five feet to compensate. The resulting expansion would be the same size, although the back would extend beyond the current rear-line of the house. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. While the action for which the applicant is seeking the variance is wholly of his own proposing, the intent is to maximize the use of the land to provide a much-needed living • space expansion while preserving as much of the remaining back yard space as possible.