Laserfiche WebLink
.•J <br />#930 Jim Schaver <br />Page 2 <br />June 12, 1985 <br />I have enclosed Resolution #1181 that approved sewer service to this <br />let. The resolution finds that construction of a single family <br />residence on the property, if properly done according to all zoning <br />performance standards, would be in keeping with the intent of the <br />Community Management Plan. That same resolution also makes a factual <br />finding that the property consists of .6 dry acres when in reality the <br />lot contains .49 acres. The City in approving sewer service to this <br />property did not determine the actual building envelope. Early plans <br />show a miscalculation is determining boundaries of wetlands. Staff <br />has only recently been made aware of these facts. A less ambitious <br />house may not be feasible for this neighborhood—but this is not our <br />concern. Are the hardships claimed by the applicant valid? Staff <br />has heard nothing from the surrouding neighbors. <br />If you deny, consider the following '’indings: <br />1. House is too ambitious for building site or on.'-^lope. <br />2. Most affected neighbor objects to substandard <br />setbacks???—he may appear at meeting. <br />If you approve, consider the following hardships and findings; <br />1. The dry buildable area is less than a 1/2 acre, but <br />subject to 2 acre setback standards. <br />2.The majority of the lot is a 2 1/2 acre wetlands that <br />serves as a retention area for surrounding <br />neighborhood. <br />3. Sewer is available to property. <br />4.The proposed house is consistent with older developed <br />lots on north side of road where majority of lots also <br />have extensive wetlands and restricted building <br />envelopes.