Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Brauer questioned the issue since they already have the liability of getting back <br />on the property. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated this would be making it worse. <br /> <br />Board Member Johnson stated he does not know how it changes that liability. <br /> <br />Board Member. Brauer verified the owner of the 66-foot easement will not sell it. <br /> <br />Mr. Meloche indicated he will not sell that part. It was noted the owner wants $1.6 million for <br />the entire parcel, which will probably be developed in three to five years. He indicated this is a <br />temporary request until that development takes place. <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Johnson, seconded by Board Member Brauer to close the public <br />hearing at 7:15p.m. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Board Members Johnson, Brauer, Shepherd, <br />Van Scoy, and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Board Input <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Johnson, seconded by Board Member Brauer to adopt Resolution #03- <br />10-268 adopting Findings of Fact #0652 relating favorably to Wayne and Marian Meloche's <br />request for a variance to Subdivision Design Standards - Lots on the property located at 17400 <br />Erkium Street NW. <br /> <br />Board Member Johnson stated he believes there are unique aspects to this request, one being the <br />existing variance. He indicated the second aspect is the nature of the road; it is pretty well <br />improved, although not to City standards. He stated the third aspect is the relative nearness of <br />the development of a road due to the impending development to the north. <br /> <br />Board Member Brauer asked if Mr. Meloche had come in and said he wanted to have a house for <br />his caretaker, could he do that without needing a variance. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated that situation was allowed on a <br />property to the West, and was processed as a conditional use permit. He indicated at the time that <br />request came in. they allowed a caretaker's residence in the Code as a conditional Use Permit, but <br />they no longer have that provision. He is not sure how they would do it if that kind of request <br />came in. <br /> <br />Board Member Brauer noted they have seen many variances over the last several months for <br />oversized accessory structures, which they routinely approve. He questioned why they could not <br />have requested that for the property. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment/October 2, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />