Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2259 <br />July 15, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />3. <br />4. <br />38.6' from the front lot line; a 10’ wide window seat 'bumpout' proposed in the submitted <br />plans would bring that structure 2* closer to the road. <br />The property is approximately 1.7 acres in total area, of which approximately 0.4 acre is <br />wetland and 1.3 acres is dr> buildable land. The rear two-thirds of the property is low, and <br />the existing house sits near the front of the lot, on a ridge approximately 25' above the rear <br />of the lot. <br />The property has a failing (discharging) septic system which was initially noted in July ly96. <br />The possibilities for repairing or replacing the drainfield are limited due to site topography <br />and the wetland. The property is in the Fox Ridge sew er 'hot spot', for which the engineer's <br />1994 estimated cost of providing sewer was $29,800 per unit. The neighborhood indicated <br />to the City that the cost of sewer is prohibitive, and as a result the City has not yet scheduled <br />this area for a sewer project. <br />Discussion <br />Please review the applicants' letter of request and hardship statement. Applicants note that recent <br />additions to the family have left them with enough bedrooms but generally not enough living space. <br />The primary issue is the side setback variance; the front setback variance is relatively minor in the <br />context of this request. Applicants suggest that the following factors limit the opportunities for <br />additions which would meet the side setback requirement; <br />shape of lot <br />- location of house on lot <br />- topography <br />- layout of rooms in house <br />- expense of building on top of fill. <br />Planning Commission should consider the standard criteria for determining undue hardship in <br />reviewing this request: <br />- Can the property in question be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls? Yes; the existing residence may be continued as is <br />for its current residential use. <br />Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property and not <br />created by the landowner? The existing house and attached garage were constructed <br />prior to current codes, and therefore the front and both side setbacks do not conform <br />to current standards. Upward expansion of the existing footprint would require <br />variances to the front and side setbacks, and perhaps for height given that it is <br />already a two-story home.