Board of Adjustment Minutes 2005 11 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Page 3 of 7 3.Property cannot reasonably be developed. As noted, if strict setbacks were applied, the house depth would be a maximum of 12 feet. Staff does not believe that provides for reasonable development. 4.Hardship not created by applicant. The subdivision plat was approved in 1983, long before the applicant acquired the property. 5.Not alter the essential character of the area. The proposed house otherwise complies with the Old Town Overlay and appears to be in character with the area. 6.Minimum variance to grant relief. The house being proposed is smaller than what might be allowed under the Old Town Overlay. The home is fairly modest and the requested variances will actually be more in conformance with requirements than the existing home. Based on those factors, staff believes the request has been minimized.  No public comments have been received by the Planning Office. However the adjacent property owner has recently informed staff that the sewer line for the home to the east crosses this property. That issue will need to be further reviewed and resolved during the building permit process.  A shed located on the property will be removed.  Staff is recommending approval with one condition pertaining to the removal of the shed. Board Questions of Staff: Weise requested clarification: 1) of the termite damage to the home and if it had been verified, 2) the FAR total and 3) the 12 foot buildable depth. Johnstone replied that staff had not verified the termite damage. The FAR total would be 1,450 SF. Johnstone continued with an explanation of how the 12 foot depth had been calculated. Malmquist asked if the shed would be removed. Johnstone stated that the removal of the shed was the one condition of approval that staff was recommending. Applicant Presentation: Eric Stimpfl, property owner discussed the following: The termite damage was confirmed during an independent structural analysis  The shed will be removed but he does accept the condition of approval for the removal of  the shed. The size of the structure has been minimized purposefully to keep with the size of the lot  and the Old Town character. Board Questions of Applicant: Stuart asked about the removal of the shed. Stimpfl stated that the shed would be removed. Public Present in Favor of Application: Mark (unknown last name) and Kathy Lorenze, 1001 Front St. stated that the applicant should address the location of the sewer line and phone line used for their home because both of the utilities cross this property. Stuart asked the applicant to address the sewer line question brought forth by the neighbor. Stimpfl stated that he would address the sewer line issue prior to or at the time of building permit issuance.