10-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3-2957 Oct^btr 20,2003 PiSe4of6 north of the most eastern line of the house precluding any additions from goins north as the well may be disturbed. The only o'her alternative would be for the addition to be constructed off the southwestern side of the e.visting house, however, the layout of the house would not be sensitive to that as the garage would be accessed throu^ the living area rather than the kitchen. The existing setbacks and layout of the home would not support any addition to the south. Therefore, the only alternative is to expand to the east where an existing non-conforming setback is already occurring. The non-conforming setback would be increased by 11 feet, however, the adjacent neighbors would not be affected as shown on Exhibit G. The new ’ rear yard setback would be 32.5 feet on a property which is under an acre in size. If the property were located in a one acre zone this 32.5 foot setback would meet the 30 foot required rear yard setback. Additionally, the applicants are proposing a rear yard setback variance to allow a deck to be setback 24 feet when 50 is required. Staff does not find any hardship w hich would constitute this variance approval. The deck is not required, is for aesthetic purposes, could be relocated to the north side, and is accessible from only the master bedroom. Further, such a deck would not be permir.ed in even the '/; acre’ or one acre zones, since the minimum rear setback for those less restrictive zoning districts is 30*. Lastly, the applicants are proposing a deuiched garage to be located 5 feet from the rear property boundary. Staff does not find any hardship which would constitute this variance approval. The required setback is 10 feet and there is adequate room for the garage to be shifted west to meet the setback and not interfere w ith the house. To do this, the applicants may be required to construct a 22 x 22 foot garage rather than a 22 x 24 foot garage to maintain a 10 foot separation from the house, and'staff belie' es this can be achieved without any variances. Staff would make the following recomme.ndations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Any garage additions to the home would require variances. There are limited areas to expand on the lot. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his proewrty not created by the landowner." The unique circumstances are the locations of the septic and well, and well as the location of the home and its footprint in relation to the property boundesries. 3.“The va .ance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The neighbor s property that would be most affected surrounds the south and east property boundaries of the applicants. However, this neighbor's home and livability of it would not be altered should the rear yard setback variances be in etifc 11 ■ aiitti Mitl ifcr d