4.1 PCSR 01-24-2017 BA DRAFT MIN

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 December 27, 2016 ----------------------------- Hauge stated she was surprised to see staffÔs recommendation for an 8-foot high fence, as that was not discussed and she was unsure why it was proposed. Steve Schwartz, 511 Upland Ï stated he was a neighbor to the north of the subject property. Mr. Schwartz stated that he did not feel there was any way a driveway could be th placed on 5 Street for this property. He stated that he felt a standard si 24-ft. by 40-ft. rambler, would not present the need for a varia been water issues in the area, due to a possible artesian aquife Mr. Carlton stated that those issues would be addressed at the time of the building permit application, as well as the amount of impervious surface. He noted that the request is not for a subdivision, since the subdivision was approved in 2005. raised by Ms. Kratzke would not pertain to the request at hand. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding the setbacks and location of the a th Upland Avenue or 5 Street. It was the consensus of the Commission to strike condition #2 for the 8-foot fence, since the applicant did not wish to have a fence, nor was the neighbor in favor of the fence. The Commission consensus was that the five criteria necessary for granting a variance are met. Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein to recommend approval of the request by Renae Hauge for a 15-foot front yard setback variance, based on the following criteria: 1.The general purpose and intent of front yard setbacks is to provide a uniform/controlled look to the front of structures. The general purpose and intent of rear and side yard setbacks is to keep structures reasonably separated from one another. The purpose and intent of these setbacks is in harmony with the ordinance. 2.The comprehensive plan guides this property as Residential. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.Building a residential home on a city approved parcel with setbacks that are more compliant then neighboring properties is using the property in a reasonable manner. 4.The plight of the property is that it received variances for lot size and lot width in 2005, prior to the applicant purchasing it. A front yard setback variance was anticipated when the property was platted. 5.The character of the locale is one of varying front yard setbacks and approving these variances will not alter that character. and with the following conditions: 1.No principal structure can be closer than 20 feet to the south property line. 2.The variance does not apply to accessory structures.