1614 EDGEMOOR LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

I i I � �ryti�. Plat of Crestw�ood � • ' ' Subdivision Alteration 2-88 - Page -6- _ �e City di3 not sumnit a reco�nendation on the reduction of the � building setback measured from the southerly lot line of lot 17 of the � Plat of Crestwood from 20' to 6'. 7he City did su6mit that an agre�nent signed by all parties subject to the crovenants must be provided before the City can provide further consideration of this part ef the subdivision alteration. (Anderson testimony) 26. �e Applicant submitted that prior to the recording of the finr 1 plat there was question as to the type of ingress/eqress needed for .ot 18. At that point, the Applicant determined that an alternative to the access of lot 18 would be a 15' easement between lots 16 and 17. IJpon informing the City that such an easement was an alternative, the City required that it be reoorded on the final plat map. (Butters testimeny) 27. 2fie Applicant suimitted that the abandonment of the easement and the reduction of the standards to R-1 zoning for the development of lot 17 will allow the lot to be developed in a manner consistent with other properties in the area. (Butters testimony) 28. �e Applicant submitted that adjust�nents and vazianaes have been granted to develop lot 16 per Mr. Braa's desires. fie claimed that a restriction on the residence on lot 17 to a one story structure was done in order that it not block any views of Mr. Braa's residence. Etuther, aocording to the Applicant, a variance was acquired to reduce the setback line of Mr. Braa's property. In addition, the Applicant sutmitted that Mr. Braa's house was larger than oriqinally pcoposed in order to provide greater views. All of these factors, according to the Applicant, should be oonsidered as evidence that Mr. Braa has been I aocomrodated to protect .his property. 'ri�e easanent vacation and the use of R-1 zoning standards would not be detrimental to Braa. (Butters testimony) 29. �e Applicant submitted that the requested action �.vuld not impact Mr. Braa's view because of th� location of the house on lot 17 as crompared to the location of the house on lot 16. (Butters testimony) 30. Mr. Braa submitted that at the time he purchased lot 16 he was aware of the 20' setback requiranent on lot 17. He submitted he �.vuld not have I purchased the property unless that setback had, in fact, been �i� enforced. (Braa testimony) i 31. 4he Applicant sutmitted that he does not want to build a larger house I on lot 17. Zhe house proposed for lot 17 will be similaz to those within the subdivision. (Butters testimony) 32. �he Applicant su6mitted that he did not intend to maximize the highest ' profit for lot 17. His main purpose, according to the Applicant, was , to allow him to develop lot 17 consistent wit`: other properties in the azea. (Butters testimony) I �i I I � � �