2005 MELVIN AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

, .r.. '- b. Conclusion: There area unusual circumstances applying to this property that do not apply generally to other prcperties in the vicinity and zone since the site is large enough for two single family lots and could by used as such except for the l.ocation of the existinq structure. Criterion No. 2: That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant post sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vioinity or zone. a. Findina: There are other lots in the R-2 zone, mainly in the north end, that do not have 50 feet of lot width and if the parcel were vacant the applicant would be able to have two single family lots without seeking a variance. b. Conclusion: Granting of this variance is necessary for. the preservation ef a property right of the appli�Ant already possessed by other property owners. Criterion No. 3: That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detri�aental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Findina: No adverse comments were received in response to a notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, and Public Works had no adverse commente. t;. Conclusion: It does not appear that grantinq this ��ariance would be detrimental to the public welfere or, injurious to other property in the vicinity and zone. Criterion No. 4• That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. a. �'indina: The Comprehensive Plan Desiqnation for `this area is Sinqle Family Detached, five to ten dwelling units per acre. b. �onclusion: The proposed use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and granting this variance would not adversely affect the plan. RSCOl4�lID11TTON: APPROVE the variance as requested by applicant. Prepared by o�yO Reviewed by �,li �icc�