Laserfiche WebLink
VI~T-171 <br />_2_ <br />6. The applicant has indicated that the street (Valley View <br />Lane) was put in at a higher elevation than was anti- <br />cipated at the time of platting resulting in an extreme <br />drop of about 20 feet to the rear of a normal house with <br />the standard setback. <br />7. The applicant has indicated that a petition has been signed <br />by neighboring residents. in favor of this request. <br />Analysia: <br />In looking at this request, it could perhaps be said that the <br />property is somewhat unique given the topography and creek. 'The <br />applicant has also indicated that the design and cost of a home <br />meeting the setback requirement would be costly, if not prohibitive. <br />Further, the applicant has further noted that meeting the setback <br />requirement would leave virtually no useable backyard. The appli- <br />cant's contentions may be valid given that what would seem to be a <br />higtsly desirable lot has remained vacant for over six years. <br />Another circumstance that may be relevant in this case is the <br />fact that this lot is located at the end of the cul-de-sac making <br />• the encroachment perhaps less visible. <br />