Laserfiche WebLink
.~ v.w i <br />,1. A moat unusually shaped lot on a cul-de-sac. <br />2. A large boulevard area between the curb and the proposed home which <br />provides effectively additional front yard area and still leaves -w <br />the proposed home a long way back from the curb. ~y_ <br />3. A Building Official who did not convey information regarding the / <br />property to the City Planner. <br />4• A surveyor who did not think it necessary to include th po in <br />his "footprint" of the 'property. <br />5. A Building Official who grants pe it after reviewing the plans <br />and the variance.-~-~ ~Z ~~ ~o~'~--~ <br />~. 6. The very technical nature of the variance requirement. The roof <br />overhang is permissible. The archway post is ermissible. But a <br />variance is required if the post supports the ro <br />Because of the uniqueness of these circumstances, the variance is larger <br />..than customarily requested. However, it is only requested for the post and <br />not for the extension of an entire enclosed structure. I cannot imagine ~} <br />that the City .would be beseiged by requests of a nature similar to this. `~'( <br />C~~ <br />ld ask that in considering this request that you consider the neigh- <br />We wou <br />borhood and the plan for that area of the City. This home as proposed <br />makes a beautiful addition to an R-1 neighborhood.. Because of the location <br />of this-lot, the amount of the setback from the front lot line has no <br />adverse effect on adjoining properties as it might if this was located. in a <br />line of houses. <br />Attached also are fifteen copies of the plan view of the proposed home and <br />fifteen copies of the elevation view of the home. I would appreciate your <br />distributing these copies along with my letter to the Planning Commission <br />and City Councils Thank you for your cooperation. <br />V ry tr y yo s, <br />~~ <br />i~ , <br />ld S. Kalina <br />Attorney for Remington Builders, Inc. <br />RSK/rr <br />Enclosures <br />