Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> Criterion No. 1: <br /> That the variance is necessary because oC exceptional or extraordinary <br /> circumstanccs regarding the size, sliape, topography, or location oP the <br /> subjcct property; or die location of a pre-existing improvement on the <br /> sttbject property that confomied to the zoning code in effect when the <br /> improvement was constructed. <br /> �. Findings: The subject parcel has exceptional or <br /> extraordinary circumstances based upon the following; <br /> a) it is a narrow lot only 35 feet in width with a total area of <br /> only 4,356 sq.R.; <br /> b) it was devcloped in Ihc early 1900's prior to any zoning <br /> code regulations; <br /> c) thc proposed addition minimally changes the footprint of <br /> tiie iiouse, ii is virivaiiy tiie exlensiun oi li�e secund rour <br /> to go the lenglh of thc house plus 5 feet. The addition �vill <br /> mcet all setbacks and comply �vith building heigh[ <br /> requirements. The substandard lot size of the property <br /> which was created prior to zoning code requirements is <br /> what makes thc variance request necessary. <br /> b. Conclusions:. The subject property has exceptional <br /> circumstances because it is a narrow substandard lot that �vas <br /> crcated prior to zoning code requirements. It is very limited in <br /> lot width dimensions as �ecll as overall lot area. <br /> Critcrion No. 2: <br /> That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the <br /> arca of the subject property or to die City as a whole. <br /> a. Findin�s:. The applicant states that die proposal would be in <br /> kceping with the historic charactcr of die neighborhood area <br /> and has been approved by the Historic Commission. The City <br /> provided written notice to all property o�vners �vidtin 300 feet <br /> of the subjcct property and no comments were recei��ed. <br /> 4 � <br />