Board of Adjustment Minutes 2006 11 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Kelly seconded a motion to accept the Public Notice Verification information as presented by staff. Motion passed by voice vote. Board Member Verification of site visits. ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest: Loeblich requested Board Member Verification for the variance request at 1145 Grant Ave. Kelly, Cordell, Malmquist, Loeblich, Weise and Chancellor all stated that they had done a site visit, had no contacts with the applicant and no conflict of interest. Loeblich asked the applicant if he was prepared to move forward with the hearing. The applicant replied that he was ready to move forward. Staff Presentation of Facts and Issues: McCartney presented the following: . The variance request is to encroach on a minimum front yard and side yard setback to allow for the expansion of an existing structure. The request is for a reduction from the required minimum front yard setback of 20 feet to 18 feet and a reduction from the 5 foot side yard setback to 3 feet 6 inches to allow for the expansion of an existing structure. . Subject property is approximately 50 feet by 125 feet - 6,250 SF in area. . Structure originally built in or around 1905. . The proposed second floor addition is approximately 756 SF. . The property must comply with the RL (Residential Low Density) zone district and the Old Town Overlay Zone District. . The applicant intends on "popping" the top of the existing structure. . The interior side yard setback variance results from a second floor bump-out, of approximately 36 SF, which is being proposed for the master bedroom. The bump-out does not run the entire length of the second floor. The second floor is approximately 30 feet in length, and the bump-out is 14.5 feet in length. Staff continued with a review of the six criteria required for a variance: 1) Unique physical circumstances - Staff finds the criterion has not been met. 2) Conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood - Staff finds the criterion has not been met. 3) Property cannot reasonably be developed - Staff finds the criterion has been met. 4) Hardship has not been created by the applicant - Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5) Essential character of neighborhood will not be altered - Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6) Minimum variance that will afford relief - Staff finds this criterion has been met. Staff stated that 4 of the 6 criteria have been met. Questions of Staff bv the Board and Applicant: Weise inquired about the other buildings on the property and how they would be affected by the variance.