02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1998 February 10, 1995 Page 2 Description of Request Lot 52 was part of a larger parcel acquired by the current owners in 1911 (refer to Exhibit H). Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 203 was filed in October of 1928. An easement described as a rod wide (16‘/i’) was created in 1911 over the Burger property at the time the larger parcel was created. The easement in later years served not only the Anderson parcel but the former Miner residence on Lot 53 of that same Auditor s Subdivision. The same non exclusive easement continues to serve the Anderson property. There is some controversy as to whether the deed for Lot 52 was updated to reflect right to the use of the easement. There is nothing to suggest in ilic original Deed that the access easement was an exclusive easement and that when Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 203 was approved^Lot 52 would not be made deliberately landlocked. Refer to Exhibits B and J. The owner of the property to the immediate south has installed a garage within a 30 ’ public alley to the south. Landmark Drive does not abut the property. The only available access to this site is via the 16‘/6’ wide easement. The propeny was served with sewer with the recent sewering of the Stubbs Bay area. The existing residence is currently not connected to sewer but has been assessed one sewer unit. Municipal sewer lines are located within the utility easement along that same 16corridor of Lot 2. Burgers Bayside Second Addition (refer to Exhibit G). It is the intention of the applicant to take down the existing structures and rebuild a new residence with attached garage requiring area and width variances. Refer to Exhibit D, applicant claims cenain hardships with relocating a new residence stnicmre meeting the required 50’ front setback. Statement of Hardship Applicant ’s addendum notes the following hardships: 1.Applicant claims existing house and proposed house will be located on a natural knoll defined at the 942’ and 940’ elevations. If the house was located further back on lot, it would sit much lower and based on the walkout design may create water problems for new residence. 2. 'The well is located right in the central portion of the building envelope. The well was installed in 1989 and applicant wishes to continue use of well. • • • 3.Placement of garage and storage area reduces length of driveway and minimizes hardcover. 4.Allowing structure to be placed more to the south will save two mature trees on property. Impact of residence being placed 26’ from south lot line is minimized by existing growth of trees and shrubs along the south lot line of the property. 1