04/05/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairperson Nixt stated restricting future building would be imposing a restrictive covenant. He would have a problem witk restricting further development if City Code would otherwise permit it. There is currently a 2 1/Z acre minimum and frontage requirements and future building would need to be considered under the circumstances and facts, and whether or not to grant a variance in the future. He would not recommend including those additional conditions as part of the approval. Board Member Cleveland stated from past experience and observations in the City, when a variance is granted they are stuck with it. She questioned how they can know the neighborhood and the value of their homes will be protected if this variance is granted and the future access off the County road. Chairperson Nixt stated this easement would provide access to a single lot. There is not a proposed lot split with this; that would have to come back with a subdivision request. Eventually if there is a subdivision they would need to go through the process of evaluating that request. Other development may occur by that time and it would then be considered whether it is a reasonable request given the surrounding land use. Board Member Cleveland commented some of these discussions have not been brought out on the table, and that is why there are a lot of missteps in the City. She stated she would like to maintain the 2.5 acres and questioned how to make sure the future generations are protected as well. She pointed out that the County road is not up to the standards it should be, but they now have someone coming forward that wants to purchase property and build on a lot that is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Board Member Cleveland, seconded by Board Member Levine, to adopt Resolution #07-04-087 adopting Findings of Fact #0793 relating to George and Denise Swanson's request for a variance from the street frontage or lot width requirement. Further discussion: Board Member Levine stated they want to be sure they are planning, but they do not have crystal balls that know what is going on in the future. If more development comes people will need to come back and request whatever is needed at that time. The Board needs to think ahead, but they cannot think so far ahead or over-engineer that they restrict someone to be able to do what they should be able to do. The following findings were determined: 16: will not; 17: will not; 18: will not; 19: will not; 20: will not; 21: will not; 22: will not Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Brauer, Board Members Cleveland, Levine, Hunt, and Trites Rolle. Voting No: None. Abstain: Chairperson Nixt. Absent: Board Member Van Scoy. Motion by Board Member Cleveland, seconded by Board Member Levine, to approve George and Denise Swanson's request for a variance from the street frontage or lot width requirement based on Findings of Fact #0793 and adopt Resolution #07-04-088 declaring terms of same. Board of Adjustment/Apri15, 2007 Page 9 of 10