Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Minutes <br /> March 26,2002 <br /> Page 2 <br /> to be removed in order for Mr.Turner to build an addition. Mr.Anderson also noted that <br /> • he was concerned about drainage onto his property if the addition were built on the lot line. <br /> There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. <br /> Chair Pederson stated that most of the homes in this neighborhood have single car garages. <br /> He expressed his concern for removal of the trees and drainage onto Mr.Anderson's lot. <br /> Commissioner Franz concurred with Chair Pederson's comments and did not feel a hardship <br /> could be established. <br /> Commissioner Mesich stated that it appears a garage was constructed on or near the lot line <br /> on the other side of Mr. Turner's property. <br /> Mr.Turner stated that his neighbor's garage is approximately 2 feet away from the property <br /> line. He explained that his lot is 80 feet wide which is wider than most of the lots in his <br /> neighborhood. He assumed when he bought the property that he would be able to add an <br /> additional garage stall. <br /> COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE <br /> REQUEST BY KEN AND TAMI TURNER FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK <br /> VARIANCE, CASE NO. V 02-02, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: <br /> 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO <br /> BUILD AN ADDITION THAT MAY NOT SUIT THEIR NEEDS. <br /> • 2. THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE <br /> PROPERTY. THERE IS ADEQUATE ROOM TO BUILD A TWO-CAR <br /> GARAGE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. <br /> IN ADDITION,THE GARAGE COULD BE DEEPENED TO PROVIDE <br /> ADDITIONAL STORAGE AREA IF REQUIRED. <br /> 3. LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS <br /> WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED <br /> BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE <br /> TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPTION <br /> TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OR TO REDUCE <br /> THE LEVEL OF ENCROACHMENT. <br /> 4. THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THE GARAGE SIZE AT THE TIME <br /> OF PURCHASE. <br /> 5. THE REQUEST COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES <br /> IN THE VICINITY. DRAINAGE,NORMALLY WITHIN THE FIVE <br /> FOOT SETBACK AREA, WOULD BE ON THE NEIGHBOR'S <br /> PROPERTY. TREES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE <br /> ADVERSELY AFFECTED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION, REGARDLESS <br /> OF WHICH PROPERTY THEY ARE LOCATED ON. <br /> COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION <br /> 411 CARRIED 6-1. Commissioner Mesich opposed. <br />