Laserfiche WebLink
combined raises the s Street as a guest amblng. It does have a stove. The stove t-dwelllng unlt^ with tly, applicant notes 332 Westlake Street 324 Westlake Street.nee In Section 12.30r expansion of existing be Issued until the .fled by the City as oes on to state that ig systems when the *es . . .changes the se of a structure.:he previous property <br />ince technically this <br />>edroom house. Note <br />roposal Is for a two <br />conjunction with a <br />, Indicate that there <br />f 250 square feet of <br />>n the lakeshore side <br />line Is 79* from the <br />‘ement. The existing <br />Ly and no seepage or <br />dralnfleld system Is <br />. The soil survey <br />:h commonly would be <br />f. of dralnfleld per <br />ould not technically <br />unless the soil was <br />rate faster than 5 <br />Lng system would be <br />r possibly three on a <br />fact that Kllkenney <br />tern due to seasonal <br />seasonal saturation <br />i-type dralnfleld. <br />h ; <br />Zoning File #1458 September 15 r 1989 Page 4 of 5The ultimate question to ask Is whether this house should be allowed to virtually double Its livable space without requiring expansion of the dralnfleld system. The existing system Is working under its current usage, but the proposed additions to the house probably will tend to make the house large enough for three or possibly four inhabitants. Chances are if soil testing was done, the existing system could not be expanded in a conforming manner using trenches, but would require a mound system. There is no feasible location on the property to construct a mound. Should further development of this property, including the currently proposed expansion, be held up until municipal sewers are provided to this neighborhood? Council has made no determination as to if or when sewers will be provided.The applicant should be advised that these questions and this discussion would be occurring regardless of the need for the <br />side setback variance, since expansion of a residence on a <br />subsl,ondard, unsewered lot is subject to the on-site sewage <br />treatment code provisions noted ear.i ier. <br />Staff Recfsendation - <br />Aside from the septic system issues. Planning Commission <br />approval of the side setback variance based on <br />additions being no closer to the side lot lines than the existing <br />structure. Considering Lots 4 and 5 as a single building lot, no <br />average setback variance is necessary. One condition of approval <br />would logically be that the two lots be combined for tax <br />purposes, thus negating the need for a north side setback <br />variance but bringing up the issue of the second structure as a <br />guest house vs. storage only. <br />Finally, Planning Commission is requested to consider the <br />septic system issue. If municipal sewer was available, the <br />concerns about a substandard septic system would be eliminated. <br />The fact that the existing substandard system is functioning <br />correctly indicates that under current usage, no problems are <br />Planning Commission feels that the proposed <br />additions will effectively increase the probable number of <br />inhabitants of this residence, that creates a potential for <br />septic system problems in the future that perhaps cannot be <br />solved in a conforming manner until municipal sewer becomes <br />available. One interim option would be lengthening of the <br />existing dralnfleld onto Lot 4, providing extra capacity but <br />being in soils and water table conditions which will limit the <br />useful life of the system. This would seem to be a reasonable <br />option if City sewer is definitely expected to be provided in the <br />relatively short-term future (5-10 years).