Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />HOFFMAN, CASE NUMBER 164J <br />feet west, of its east property line. <br />This large setback <br />will tend to <br />mitigate <br />the impact, of the smaller lot <br />to the, east, if approved. <br />place was, to allow <br />We <br />suggested <br />to the Hoffm�ans that they <br />discuss their lot <br />division <br />with <br />effected <br />neighbors in the immediate, area. Though the <br />75 foot <br />lot <br />proposed <br />is not in scale with the larger <br />lots that exist in- <br />the area, <br />the <br />160 foot <br />lot, as it exists is out of scale <br />with the 105 to <br />110 foot <br />lots <br />that generally, exist, in the area. <br />the reason for <br />retaining the larger <br />lot for <br />610 The reason the 1,60 <br />foot <br />lot, was platted <br />at this dimension <br />'in <br />the first <br />place was, to allow <br />for <br />the retention of <br />a drainage swale <br />through <br />the <br />propertyq You will <br />notice the, existence <br />of this provision <br />for <br />drainage <br />Indicated on the section <br />map we, attached <br />to, this report. <br />The <br />drainage <br />ciandition has since <br />been <br />accommodated by the construction <br />of' <br />a storm <br />sewer system so that <br />the reason for <br />retaining the larger <br />lot for <br />drainage purposes no <br />longer, exists.1 <br />It would appear, that the question, here is one largely of reasonableness. <br />There are perhaps three choi,cels�: <br />lei to leave the lot, as it 1s; <br />2* to approve the division; <br />3. to consider future, rezoning to a, duplex lot and constructing an <br />additional unit attached to the, existing home. <br />