Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1998 <br />February 10, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />Description of Request <br />Lot 52 was part of a larger parcel acquired by the current owners in 1911 (refer to <br />Exhibit H). Auditor's Subdivision No. 203 was filed in October of 1928. An easement <br />described as a rod wide (16½ ') was created in 1911 over the Burger property at the time the <br />larger parcel was created. The easement in later years served not only the Anderson parcel but <br />the former Miner residence on Lot 53 of that same Auditor's Subdivision. The same non- <br />exclusive easement continues to serve the Anderson property. There is some controversy as to <br />whether the deed for Lot 52 was updated to reflect right to the use of the easement. There is <br />nothing to suggest in the original Deed that the access easement was an exclusive easement and <br />that when Auditor's Subdivision No. 203 was approved1Lot 52 would not be made deliberately <br />landlocked. Refer to Exhibits Band J. The owner of the property to the immediate south has <br />installed a garage within a 30' public alley to the south. Landmark Drive does not abut the <br />property. The only available access to this site is via the 16 ½' wide easement. <br />The property was served with sewer with the recent sewering of the Stubbs Bay area. <br />The existing residence is currently not connected to sewer but has been assessed one sewer unit. <br />Municipal sewer lines are located within the utility easement along that same 16 ½' corridor of <br />Lot 2, Burgers Bayside Second Addition (refer to Exhibit G). <br />It is the intention of the applicant to take down the existing structures and rebuild a new <br />residence with attached garage requiring area and width variances. Refer to Exhibit D, applicant <br />claims certain hardships with relocating a new residence structure meeting the required 50' front <br />setback. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Applicant's addendum notes the following hardships: <br />1. Applicant claims existing house and proposed house will be located on a natural <br />knoll defined at the 942' and 940' elevations. If the house was located further <br />back on lot, it would sit much lower and based on the walkout design may create <br />water problems for new residence. <br />2. The well is located right in the central portion of the building envelope. The well <br />was installed in 1989 and applicant wishes to continue use of well. <br />3. Placement of garage and storage area reduces length of driveway and minimizes <br />hardcover. <br />4. Allowing structure to be placed more to the south will save two mature trees on <br />property. Impact of residence being placed 26' from south lot line is minimized <br />by existing growth of trees and shrubs along the south lot line of the property.