AgdaPkt 2003-06-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9,A -z there is a 70+ foot heritage Redwood tree in our front yard, but while the ZA suggests we expand towards it, we will not build in that direction out of safety considerations'. Please consider the judgments of the current ZA in contrast to the findings and variance approval made in 1998 for a very similar property just ac. oss the park from us. Th- similarities in that case are numerous, but you might not think so if looking only at the findings. The valiance approval is attached, but I'd like to repeat and comment on similarities in the findings here: "Than the property is irregular in shape such that the finished outside wall of the residence is not parallel with the rear yard lot line." Although our lot is not irregular in shape, it is small as compared to neighboring properties (as referred to earlier), and the presence of the heritage tree to the front prevents building in that direction. "As a result, the south side of the rear yard addition has a 20 foot rear yard setback, while the north side of the addition has n h -foot rear yard setback. (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6 allows a niodificauon to std vard setbacks due to similar circumstances)." In our proposed addition. the northern half of the property will maintain its 28'10" rear setback. "717C pr•opern i.s also bordered to the rear by Marlin [sic] Park and therefore should not impact the prn'arcr of a neighborhood residential property. Trees within the site and in Marlin [sic] Park will also help to screen the proposed addition." "That the panting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since the property is located in Marlin Suhdivtsion No. 2. This subdivision previously allowed l i foot rear yard . setback.%. t 'onsryuenth, main re.sidencea tit the .surrounding neighborhood (on Teredo, Tiller, Spar and liarkernrrrr I )re� ns) currewly have 15 7 foot recur yard setbacks." "Than the variance would not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, not would it be dei nnental to health, .safety or prthlic welfare. The residential addition will not negativeh• impact light, C111 or pin ac t hens een buddntgs and it still afford adequate private open space amenities on site." Other than the differences discussed above, it appears that if we had filed our application before November, 2002 we might have received practically a photocopy of this approval letter. Our legal analvsis (cited in our letter of 4/21/03) concludes regarding issues of precedent that: "the approval or dental of a variance does not create a precedent for subsequent variance requests." However, it seems that the difference in factual interpretation by the present ZA is so egregiously different from this and other prior cases. that a City Council reversal of the ZA denial is warranted in this case Sincerely, Susan and Edward Wilson Rcd\\ood trccs naturalh occur m forests. \\here the root systems of neighboring trees inter \mc and grow together This is roquucd to enable Redssoods to gro\\ to the heights the} reach. Addtuonalls. Red\\ood Shores. beme built on landfill. pnmanh composed of a thick clay -rock mixture, is not a natural environment for this tree An\ significant construction towards the tree would weaken this fragile root system.