AgdaPkt 2003-06-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

specifies that in order to grant any variance the Zoning Administrator must be able to make all of the following three findings: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: That special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings exist which would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classification; and 2. No Special Privilege: That the adjustment authorized by the variance shall no, constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 3. Follows Intention of the Zoning Ordinance: That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In the case of this particular application, the Zoning Administrator was not able to make any of the required findings. An analysis of the findings is described in the Analysis section, below. Appellant's Issues On May 2, 2003 the applicants, Ed and Susan Wilson of 454 Barkentine Lane, appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator (please refer to the attached letter dated May 2, 2003, Attachment 3). The appellant's reasons and concerns are summarized as follows: A. Redwood Tree: The existing Redwood tree located in the front of the subject property prevents expansion to the front of the existing residence. B. Small Lot The 6,500 square foot lot is "relatively small." C. Park: The subject property backs onto Mariner Park (a 17 -acre open space area). D. Kitchen Recent upgrades to the home, including a vaulted ceiling in the kitchen, preclude alternate designs for the proposed addition. E. Neiahborino Pre - Existing Conditions: Some surrounding residences have fifteen (15) foot rear yard setbacks. F. Other Variances: The variance request is "similar" to previously granted variances. G. Other Cities: The variance request is "similar' to previously granted variances by other cities on the Peninsula. H. Tree Screening: The presence of mature trees in the park will screen the addition from the park. Analysis The following analysis considers the three variance findings with respect to the subject property and proposed project. The appellant's issues are also addressed as they relate to the findings and discussion and are identified by letter (e.g. A through H) and the underlined heading for easy reference. First Variance Test: Do Special Circumstances Exist? Size, Shape, and Topography: The subject property is approximately sixty -five feet (65') in width and one hundred feet (100') in length with a lot area of 6,500 square feet. The lot lines are straight and thus the parcel has a standard rectangular shape. The subject property exceeds the Zoning regulations for minimum site requirements in terms of area and width for R -1 lots where the minimum standards are six thousand (6,000) square feet for lot area and fifty (50) feet for average lot width. The subject property is also relatively flat and does not contain any prominent topographic features which could be considered a