Laserfiche WebLink
4. <br />5. <br />A. The property was originally platted as a back lot because it does not <br />directly abut a private or public road and gains access via a 30’ outlet <br />leading from the cul-de-sac to the east line of the property. <br />B. By definition, the east line of the property is the front lot line. By <br />definition, and per the back lot requirements, the setback from the <br />easterly lot line for this property is 75'. <br />C. Due to the orientation of the adjacent residence to the east and the <br />orientation of the proposed house, the lot line in question will flmction <br />as a side lot line for both the front lot and back lot. Therefore there is <br />a diminished need for the expanded setback as defined in the code, since <br />the expanded setback requirement was intended in part to mitigate <br />adjacency of dissimilar yards. <br />D. Applicant proposes to orient his home the same direction as the adjacent <br />homes to the east, hence it would be appropriate to consider the east lot <br />line as a side lot line. <br />E. The lot meets all other required back lot standards. <br />F. Granting of the variance will avoid the need to excavate into the knoll <br />on the west side of the property. <br />G The proposed 45 ’ east lot line setback meets the separation intent of the <br />back lot ordinance in that 45 ’ is 150% of the normal 30’ side yard <br />requirement for the RR-IB zone. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning distnct; that <br />Page 2 of 5