06/23/05 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board Business Board Member Johnson indicated that while he is sympathetic to the ups and downs Mr. Deemer has suff'crcd with this property, he has a difficulty with this requested variance because he would bc concerned about the precedent they would be setting. Motion by Board Member Johnson, seconded by Board Member Brauer to adopt Resolution #05- 06-181 adopting Findings of Fact #0723 unfavorable to the applicant relating to a request from Mr. Ben Deemer for a variance in determining maximum allowable density on the Subject Property with the clarifications to the following findings: 17. That if granted, the variance will permit density that is prohibited in the R-2 Medium Density District. 18. Removed 19. Removed 20. Rc~noved 21. That if granted, the variance will violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 22. That if granted, the variance will grant the Applicants any special privilege that is denied to other owners of land in the same district. Board Member Brauer commented that he does not remember a case such as this that was granted in thc past. Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated this is the first of this type. Board Mc~nber Brauer stated he agrees with Board Member Johnson that they would be setting a precedent, and would have to do the same thing for every land owner that came in with this request. Board Member Johnson reiterated he is sympathetic to Mr. Deemer's predicament, and knows it ha,q not bccn an easy experience. Board Member Levine agreed with the other Board Members, stating there is a lot of history on the table, lie stated their obligation going forward is to eliminate this type of thing and make decisions based on the rules and regulations they have in place. Mr. l)ccmcr stated the underlying reason for the variance is that he sat on the Planning Commission, so there were some things he could not do. He indicated he objected to the moratorium in 1997. He stated when he sat on the Board he does believe they allowed area for County roads to calculate gross density, and he is sure that this change occurred after that happened. He indicated this goes back to 1980 when County Roads were only 66 feet, and the City was ttying to help preserve the 120 feet right-of-way they have now. He stated to compensate land owners for that additional right-of-way they allowed that space to be used to calculate density. Board of Adjustment/June 23, 2005 Page 6 of 8