Laserfiche WebLink
<br />necessary to grant the minor exception and variance have been <br />established: <br /> <br />1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject <br />property, including size, shape, topography, location, or <br />surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found <br />to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at <br />variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this <br />chapter. <br /> <br />There are special circumstances applicable to the subject <br />property where the strict interpretation of the zoning <br />ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of <br />privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and <br />purpose of the provisions of the zoning code. This proposed <br />second unit is an existing structure with an architectural style <br />matching that of the primary residence onsite. This <br />integration of style is strongly supported by city design <br />guidelines. Additionally, the location and height of the <br />structure are pre-existing. This is a very large lot (18,000 <br />s.f.) has an abundance of open space and open, paved <br />driveway area behind gates that would keep vehicles from <br />public view in the same manner as a garage. The existing <br />primary residence is 4,705 s.f. with ample room for interior <br />storage of typical household items that may commonly be <br />stored in a shed or garage. Additionally, there are unique <br />constraints in the rear yard. These include the location of <br />the existing structure(s) and swimming pool which preclude <br />the owners from constructing a garage that would meet the <br />City's turning radius standards in the front of the existing <br />second unit allowing a vehicle to maneuver into said garage. <br /> <br />2. That the granting of a minor exception and variance is necessary <br />for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial <br />property rights. <br /> <br />This minor exception and variance impacts the rights of the <br />property owners to develop their property in a manner <br />encouraged by the State of California, Le., providing <br />affordable housing in single-family areas. The owner of this <br />residence wishes to maintain the structure's architectural <br />style and compatibility with the primary residence without <br />modifying the original style intended by the architect. <br /> <br />3. That the granting of a minor exception and variance will not be <br />materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to <br />surrounding property. <br /> <br />The project will not be materially detrimental to the public <br />welfare because the structure was built at the same time as <br /> <br />318-16 <br /> <br />Resolution No. 2005-16 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />