2005-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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