Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, <br />05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and <br />05-57 thru 05-60 <br />August 22, 2005 <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br />DENY SECOND DRIVEWAY <br /> <br />Findings of Fact <br /> <br />A. 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 <br />found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at <br />variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this <br />chapteri <br /> <br />The property ln question has sufficient lot width to provide <br />access to a two car garage if constructed in the rear yard. <br />The property has 60 feet of street frontage and 7,380 square <br />feet of lot area, which exceeds the minimum R-1 lot standards <br />of 50 feet of frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot size. <br />There is approximately 10 feet between the house and side <br />property lines that could be used to access a garage if <br />constructed in the rear yard. There are no special <br />circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or <br />surroundings that would prevent this property from meeting <br />current Municipal Code parking requirements, and therefore a <br />second driveway would not deprive the subject property of <br />privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and <br />purpose of the provisions of this chapter. <br /> <br />B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation <br />and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights; <br /> <br />The applicants are requesting approval of a second driveway on <br />their property so that they can park additional vehicles on <br />their property. The property in question has an existing <br />driveway. Addi tionally, this lot is larger than many <br />properties in the City and has enough property to accommodate <br />the construction of a two car garage in their rear yard, which <br />would eliminate an existing legal nonconforming situation by <br />bringing the property into compliance with City parking <br />standards for single-family residential property. Because this <br />property can meet City parking codes, the granting of the <br />requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and <br />enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT 4 <br />31 B-26 <br />