Laserfiche WebLink
II I <br /> I <br /> I � <br /> BOARD OP ADJUSTlfENT I <br /> FINDINCS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER <br /> (Variance N31-R4) i <br /> Corrected order I <br /> January 7, 1985 I <br /> i <br /> Based upon the written request for a variance from the City'e zoning <br /> code, specifically 19.14.030, made by Frank Konecky at 4401 Thompson,l <br /> hcreinafter. referred to as "Applicant," the Board of Ad��etment, folloving a,l <br /> public hearLng on said applicatlon held on November 5, 1984, and furtherl' <br /> having reviewed all tes[imony, makes the following Fi�idings, Concluaione, and <br /> Order: ' <br /> ' I <br /> � FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: I <br /> �i ----------------' , <br /> 1. That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumetances orl <br /> conditions applying to the sub�ect property or as to [he intended use; <br /> thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same� <br /> vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Finding: The applicant owns a parcel of property at 4CJ1� <br /> Thompeon. The lot ie, 118 feet a[ mid-lot point. The applicant <br /> could not short piat hts property with�ut a variance from mid-lotj <br /> point. i <br /> b. Conclueion: Both lots meet zoning code requirementa forl <br /> end�-s t�I y•, fot 1 - 9,935 and lot 2 - 9,240. <br /> 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en,joyment of a <br /> subsrantial proper[y right of the appellant poasessed by the ownere of <br /> ottier properties in the saroe vicinity or zone. <br /> a. Findtng: The applican['s property is located ia the R-1 zone� <br /> and is being used per [hat requirement. � <br /> b. Conclusion: The proposed variance would allow the property to <br /> be used in a reasonable manner. <br /> I <br /> 3. That the authorizatton of such varLance will not be materially <br /> detrimen[al to the puSlic welfare or in�urtous to property in the <br /> vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br /> a. Finding: The existir.g ]ot ie 19,355 aquare fee[ xi[h a very <br /> large side yard area. Both pr.oposed lote are approximately 2,000 <br /> feet above the lot aize average for R-L zone. , <br /> b. Conclusion: The variance would not have any effect on the areal <br /> because of the aize of lote 1 and 2. � <br /> 4. That the granting of such variance will not adveraely affec[ thel <br /> Comprehensive General Plan. <br /> a. Finding: The comprehensive plan shows [his area as Single� <br /> Famil; ReaidenLial. <br /> b. Conclusion: This variance will have no effect on thel' <br /> comprehensive plai. � <br /> i j <br /> -2- I <br /> i <br />