02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Discussion ensued regarding the capability of the structure to move east or closer to the property line. It was determined the incline of the topography would be too close to where the trucks would need to get through. Chairperson Van Scoy asked if there was a reason the structure could not be put in the northwest corner other than the trees. Board Member Brauer stated that maneuvering one of those trucks through changing topography is difficult. You do need more than just the width of the truck. Mr. Renner stated the well rig is top heavy and if it gets up against a tree, it won't move. This lot has changing topography, changing slopes, and any where north would be difficult, and with the side hill the rig would be at the mercy of the conditions of the ground. He asked if the blue line on the drawing did not exist, would there be a problem of putting the shed where it is? Associate Planner stated city code states that on parcels less than two acres no detached accessory structure may be constructed nearer the front property line than that of the principal structure. Mr. Renner questioned the purpose of the ordinance. Associate Planner Gladhill stated the purpose is to keep the structure behind the dwelling to place the emphasis on the principle structure. Board Member Rogers asked Mr. Renner if in his opinion the northwest corner would be an option. Mr. Renner stated the compound hill and the size of the rig that needs to get in the area of the well makes the northwest corner not an option. He continued explaining how he would get the rig into the well site if the shed was not in the recommended location. Amended motion by Board Member Brauer, seconded by Board Member Hunt to adopt resolution #10 -02 -036 adopting findings of fact #0862 favorable to the applicant amending findings number 28 to say "That the alternative location would restrict access for well service"; remove findings of fact number 29; combine findings of fact numbers 30 and 31 with portions of 28 to read "That the existing topography ranging from approximately two (2) to four (4) feet in conjunction with narrowing lot width to the rear of the subject property, and topography creating seasonal wet conditions would prohibit a well truck from accessing the rear yard from the other side of the alternative location does create a hardship in the northeast quadrant of the rear yard" Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members, Hunt, Brauer, Cleveland, Dunaway, and Rogers. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Member Levine. Motion by Chairperson Van Scoy and seconded by Board Member Cleveland to adopt resolution #10 -02 -037 to approve the request for a variance to construct an accessory structure nearer the front property line than the principal structure at 5161 156 Lane NW, based on the findings of fact with the addition "That the Permittee shall maintain existing screening from all neighbors including the public right of way ". Board of Adjustment/February 4, 2010 Page 4 of 6