Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusion: This will maximize their view from the property. The <br /> view from the adjacent property to the south �aill be blocked by the <br /> additional 3 foot railing. <br /> B. PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY RIGNT: <br /> Finding: There are other decks used in this area to maximize views. <br /> Conclusion: To grant [his Variance would block the view from the <br /> adjacent property. ' <br /> C. PUBLIC WELFARE: <br /> Finding: The deck is buil[ and does block the view of the adjacen[ <br /> property. <br /> Conclusion: The addi[ion of the three additional feet blocl:s the <br /> view from the adjacent property, and is detrimental and injurious <br /> to the adja�ent property to the south. zo <br /> a <br /> .. <br /> D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: �� <br /> Finding: 1968 Plan shows this area as Single Family Residential. <br /> The 1972 Update shows this area as Medium Density Residential, .+ .. <br /> 1 T <br /> Conclusion: This area is residential and this type of residential in m <br /> should be allowed to take advantage of the natural beauty of the c o <br /> City. �View of Port Gardner Bay.) m o <br /> -i c <br /> � <br /> E. REAR YARD: �Z <br /> x -i <br /> Finding: E.M.C. 19.04.010 (B) (38) defines "rear yard" as �' �» <br /> follows: "yard, rear" means an open space extending across the �n� <br /> full width of the lot� the required depth of which shall be r' = <br /> .... <br /> measured horizontally from the rear lot line to a line parallel K N <br /> thereto �n the lot. E.M.C. 19.16.050 �C) established the rear yard o p <br /> depth of twenty (20) feet. �+ a <br /> --�m <br /> Conclusion: According to �he definition of "rear yard," the depth m N <br /> is to be measured from the rear lot line. By measuring twenty (20) o r <br /> feet from the appli�ant's rear lo[ line, the garage and deck are �N <br /> not locate:d wi[hin [he applicant's rear ysrd for purposes of the m �n <br /> zoning coda. The zoning code is clear in that [he depth is to be �('? <br /> measured fr.�m the rear lot line, not from the ridge line. That • r*� <br /> being the case, the eight foot height limitation set for[h in A <br /> E.M.C. 19.42.040 (D) does not apply. _ <br /> � <br /> ` DECISION: DENY THE VARIANCE FROM E.M.C. 19.42.040 (C) . Z <br /> �.�n I --� <br /> x <br /> Deny a Variance in the P.-2 zone c:hich ceould allow the construction v+ <br /> of a sundeck on the existing garage for the follow�ng reasons: o <br /> -� <br /> ... <br /> 1 . There are no exceptional or ex[raordinary circumstances tha[ m <br /> apply to this property. <br /> 2. The applican[ csused his own hardship. <br /> 3. The Variance would block the view of the adjacent property �o <br /> the South and be detrimental to tliose property values. <br /> 4. The Variance will effect the Comprehensive P1.an. - <br /> ��'?��::_ . , I.. <br /> � <br /> � <br />