Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Resolution No. 06-063 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including <br />size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of <br />the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed <br />by other properties in the vicinity and under Identical zoning classification; <br /> <br />The R-1-6,5oo Zoning District requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet, minimum <br />lot depth of 100 feet, and a minimum area of 6,500 square feet. At approximately <br />79 feet in width, 150 feet in depth, and 11,888 square feet in area, the lot <br />exceeds the minimum required lot width, depth, and area for the R-1-6,500 <br />District. However, the subject property is unique in that it is moderately sloped <br />and contains a pool immediately behind the existing house. These factors make <br />compliance with the separation requirements more difficult on the subject lot than <br />on flat lots without pools located immediately adjacent to the rear of the home. <br />Therefore, there are circumstances unique to this property, and this first finding <br />can be made for the variance. <br /> <br />2. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege <br />inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same <br />zoning district; <br /> <br />In order for this finding to be made, there must exist a relationship between the <br />special circumstances applicable to the property and the variance in question. <br />As stated above, the site topography and existing pool are unique and limit the <br />applicant's placement of additions within the separation requirements. <br />Therefore, there is direct relationship between the uniqueness of the lot and the <br />variance in question, and by granting the subject variance, the applicant will not <br />be granted a special privilege that is inconsistent with other properties in the <br />same zoning district. Therefore, the second finding can be made. <br /> <br />3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, <br />safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in <br />the vicinity. <br /> <br />The purpose for having separation and setback regulations is to allow for open <br />spaces for light, air, and views between properties; to prevent excessive <br />overcrowding of lands with structures; and to foster harmonious and workable <br />relationships among properties. The proposed additions would meet the floor <br />area ratio (FAR) and height regulations of the zoning district, which are designed <br />to control the overall mass and height of structures on a property. Furthermore, <br />the northem side addition is one story and approximately 17% feet tall (measured <br />from the ridge to the adjacent grade). In addition, the proposed window on the <br />northern side elevation would be an under cabinet window with an upper frame <br />height of six feet as measured from the outside grade. Based on these factors, <br />the proposed addition would not be overbearing to the adjacent properties, would <br />not create privacy impacts, or adversely impact the light, air, open space, and <br />views between properties. Therefore, the granting of the variance would not be <br />detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or materially injurious <br />to properties in the area, and this third finding can be made for the variance. <br />