06/03/04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Modon carried. Voting Ye:;: Ch~ J.r?rson Nixt, Board Members Kociscak, Reeve and Watson. Voting No: N~)nc. Absent: Boarci M::mbers Joi-mson and Sweet. .. ~loth)n by (ihairgcrson N:i:.cr, sec~mclcd bv Board Member Kociscak, to approve Kelly Hemp's request t'~¢r a variance f¥om tl~e st~ et:r ~i'ontage or lot width requirement based on Findings of Fact and to adopt [%so iud on ;~01- 09-.37; 2 ,,.h:c[aring terms of variance. Motion caL'ric([. Voting Ye,,;: Ch:,irpcrson Nixt, Board Members Kociscak, Reeve and Watson. Voting bk): Non[:. Absent: Boar¢ X[cmbers Jol2~son and Sweet. Case #2: Request fi)r a Va~iat~ce fi~om Street Frontage or Lot Width Requirements; C:~se of Bruce and (aroi Buchart Chairperson h. ixll closed thc regu[ tr [~ortiot~ of the Board of Adjustment meeting at 7:20 p.m. in order to cora(linc[ tl~e publi,.: t',earinl.. Public Hearing Chairperson h. ixt called thC publi~: h~::u'ing to order at 7:20 p.m. Presentation Community l)¢v,.:lol3mCm I)imct~,r I roltk stated that Bruce and Carol Buchart are requesting a variance to th,t mirSn~um, k)t widt t ,)~ street frontage requirement in order to build a home on a lot they purcl~a:',ud ai 81 [0 173'd Avc;tuu N.W. As some of the Board members may recall, tlxe Board of A. djustmc~t at})prr)vcd at ,/aria~n~:e i?om the minimum street frontage requirement for this lot on July 7, 199a. l [~,wcver. r~o build} a5 pel7nir was applied fur within the one-year time frame and the variance cxpi red ~)m July 7, I. 999. Fhc owner of the propmly applied for a renewal and the Board of A([~t. tstmcnt upproved it on Septe ni)~:r 4, 2000. Again, no building permit was applied fur within thc onc-ye;~r iim,: fi'amc ;u'~d tl~e /ariance expired. The prope~ has now been sold to Bruce and Car¢>l I¢t.tchart und they ;tr~: prep~r~:d to comlnence construction this year.'- 'Ci~ Code does not permit thc ,.l,:vcl,)[)mcnt ~)l'a lnon,e ,;,n a tot that does not meet the minimum width requirements. City Code &:ISlets widd~ az¢ thc tmioul~r of propez~ that abuts the public road. In the rural residential di:;tricL tiao m. ir~in~um lot width or street frontage requirement is 200 feet. The subject property at3ut::~ (;;,)unty Road .%3 ~.t txx, o Locations; one measurement is 70 feet and the other is 150 feel. In total, d~t: parcel ha}s 220 b~,t of non-contiguous street frontage. City Staff recommends re- issum]cc o l" t l~c ,.,arianoc [?om st~.~et f?ontage requirements contingent upon the applicant entering into a variance u,zreenacn.~ witln th;: i.' ity. The proposed variance is identical to the one approved in 1998 ',-u~t[ 2{)00. Citizen Inp~t 'l'hc (;ommi:;:;i~ noted i:k)r tiao re ¢.:~>t'd. receipt of a letter from Kurt and Judy Dey of 8240 173~d Avenue MW. opi)osin!g the tuque: t tk;.r variance. \d.iustment/September 10, 2001 Page 4 of 8 19