06-13-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1927 May 13. 1994 Page 2 Description of Request In July of 1993 applicant received approval of an area variance for Lots 5 and 6. During the review, applicant advised that she was attempting to acquire the soon-to-be tax-forfeited lots to the immediate north. Lots 3 and 4. Ms. McCarty was successful in obtaining the two parcels and now includes them within the building site. The lot width variance is no longer required and the area has been increased to 25.050 s.f. Due to certain physical site constraints, she has placed the house more to the north and to the west. Drainage and a low retention area to the south within Lot 6 creates the need to move northward. The desire to preserve trees along the west and mid-point of Lots 5 and Lot 4 places house within 30’ of the west rear lot line. Review Exhibit K. specifically Illustration A. that reflects existing lot lines and development within the immediate neighborhood. Applicant notes no impact upon existing residences as Parcels 2 and 3 have homes well to the south. Illustration B reflects lot lines that were proposed in a subdivision that was never completed involving Parcels 1 and 2. It is stall’s understanding that the current owner of Lot 1 objects to substandard setback to the west lot line placing the rear of a house within 30’ rather than the required 50’. The proposed 40’ length residence could never meet the required front and rear setback of a lot at 125 ’-H depth. Refer to Exhibit H. The depth of the building envelope is defined at 25.5 ’. It was noted during the first review the possible need tor rear or front setback variance. Hardship Statement Refer to Exhibits B-1 and B-2. Applicant notes the following: 1. The southern portion of property is wet. 2. 3. 4. The location of trees located within the central portions of the property Applicant notes stand of trees in higher elevations along west lot line minimizes impact of single story residence. Applicant claims the design of home is to fit the existing neighborhood of cottage like structures. If structure was to be realigned more north and south, this would no longer be possible. Issues for Consideration 1.Applicant has provided photos of the area depicting density and type of vegetation. It may help if Planning Commission members are able to once again visit this site. Are the hardships valid?