Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Shumway, <br />Peterson, Deemer, Howell, Hendriksen and LaDue. Voting no: None. Absent: <br />None. <br /> <br />BOARD OF ADJUsrMENl' BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Request For Variance From Side Yard Setback: Case of Mr. Richard <br />Carson for Chateau Construction: <br /> <br />Mr. Art Raudio stated that Mr. Carson is reque.sting a variance of 2.2 feet from <br />the required side yard setback of 10 feet. The Commission discussed the side <br />yard setback of 5 feet on the garage side. The Commission also commented that <br />they thought the property was inspected before the forms were in place, <br />especially due to the size of the house on that p:lrticular lot. Staff verified <br />the 5 foot side yard setback on garage sides. <br /> <br />The Board reviewed the proposed Findings of Fact and made the following <br />changes: <br /> <br />4. That the subject property is located in a P.U.D. district is <br />approximately 8,900 sg:uare feet in size. <br /> <br />6(a). That the subject parcel is located in the Flintwood Hills 2nd <br />Addition P.U.D. and in this P.U.D., a side yard setback of 5 feet is permitted <br />on the garage side. <br /> <br />8. Due to an error at the time of building permit application, a building <br />permit was approved and issued and a house was constructed on the site. The <br />encroachment on the required side yard was discovered at the time of closing. <br /> <br />Qnit #9. <br /> <br />10. That the Applicant has stated that such variance is necessary for the <br />preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights similar to those <br />possessed by other properties P. U.D. district. <br /> <br />11. That if the variance is granted, the variance will not allow the <br />Applicant any special privilege that is denied to other amers of lands in the <br />P.U.D. district. <br /> <br />13. That if the variance is granted, it will not be materially detrimental <br />to the purposes of the zoning ordinance or other properties in the P.U.D. <br />district. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Shumway to adopt <br />Findings of Fact #0154 as amended relating to Mr. Carson's request for a <br />variance fran the side yard setback requirements. <br /> <br />Further discussion: The Commission noted that the Building Official should <br />require large hanes on small urban lots to be staked by the surveyor to avoid <br />similar problems in the future. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners LaDue, <br />Hendriksen, Howell, Deemer, Peterson and ShlmVay. Voting no: None. Absent: <br />1/27/87 Board of Adjustment <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />