Laserfiche WebLink
i- <br />l: <br />V- <br />& <br />!v <br />t <br />f!.^ <br />f?- <br />•ff‘ <br />h <br />Zoning File #1642 May 15r 1991 <br />Page 4 <br />adjacent to his neighbor's quiet side yard. Exhibit E indicates <br />the location of the neighboring residence to the south of the <br />Swanson'Sr and while Swanson's proposed southerly yard may or may <br />not function as a backyard, the topography at both sites suggests <br />that even if the neighboring house was replaced, it would not <br />move so far downhill as to place its side yard in Swanson's rear <br />yard. <br />Also, the existing separation between houses is about 100'. <br />The proposed house location with a 10' variance yields a 150' <br />separation. The new house location actually may tend to increase <br />the perceived openness of the neighborhood. <br />As designed, the house could meet all setbacks except for a <br />2* portion of the entry portico which would have to be cut back <br />or eliminated if a variance was not allowed. Certainly the <br />hardship for a setback variance is not in the design of the <br />house, but in the quest for reducing potential impacts of and to <br />the alternate drainfield site should it ever be needed. <br />Staff Recof ndation <br />If the Planning Commission deter*nines that the hardship of <br />no additional available land is valid, then the lot width and <br />area variances could be recommended for approval. Regarding the <br />setback variance, staff would suggest that if Planning Commission <br />determines there will be no negative impact on the neighborhood <br />by allowing a 10' side setback variance such a variance will <br />allow for a better alternate drainfield site for possible future <br />use. <br />Isv <br />- k-r ■i . - <br />/' ‘ t A*- <br />'a <br />ii