Laserfiche WebLink
Tillquist: The house on Lot 7, what is the square footage on that house? <br />Von Eschen: Lot 7 is 1710 sq.ft. and Lot 8 is approx. 1700 sq.ft., not including the <br />garage. <br />Sears: Anyone else want to speak on this issue? I am now going to close the public <br />hearing and open it up to comments by Board members. <br />Pendergrast: I have a couple comments. Part of this is a result of going to the <br />DRCOG seminar for Boards of Adjustment. First of all, economic hardship by <br />definition of the cost of making of plans is not a hardship by the legal code that we <br />have to operate under. So, the hardship would be if the lot would sit unsold to that <br />particular buyer or the cost of making new plans. That's the only hardship I see. <br />I would have trouble going along with provision 3 of finding the requirements <br />because we have to find that the conditions are either inapplicable or satisfied and <br />that is because the property can't be reasonably developed in conformity with the <br />provisions of the Title. It would seem that by changing the architecture, you could <br />get 800 or 900 sq. ft. on the first floor and somewhat less or more on the second <br />floor. I think we have some problems satisfying provision 3. If someone does want <br />to propose that, I think we are going to have to figure out a way that provision 3 is <br />met. As far as 5, I don't think it will alter the essential character of the <br />neighborhood or district. No. 4, I don't think the unnecessary hardship was created <br />by the applicant, but it does appear that there is a little bit of confusion about the <br />what the street setback was. They might just be applying for 2 ft. if there had been <br />that confusion. I still have problems with provision 3. That would be my only <br />difficulty. <br />Tillquist: Steve, I think I agree. It seems to me that there is a house that can be <br />developed on that. This particular buyer may not be the right one. I agree with all <br />your other comments too. <br />Pendergrast: I also have some problems with unique physical circumstances or <br />provisions such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness. It doesn't really seem <br />like we've got that condition. <br />Sears: I would have to agree. The developable area is 1563 sq.ft. Granted that <br />would just be a box. If you take out the garage, 400 sq.ft., we're at 1163 sq.ft. I've <br />seen three bedroom ranches work with 1163 sq.ft., and even less. I don't see where <br />this has a family room. It seems to me that it is possible even for the modification <br />of this configuration to work on that property. For the record, I just did some <br />calculations while discussions were going on, and the lot is 66.39 feet on West <br />Street. Taking 7 feet off of that and also 42 feet off of that for the width of the <br />home, it leaves 17.39 feet of setback. That is from the property line to the major <br />portion of the wall in the family room so that the fireplace would hang over an <br />11 <br />