HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Board of Adjustment 1994-09-06BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
,yBoard of Adjustment
September 6, 1994
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Doylen, Members Dekker, Gillette,
Newsom, and Sager
Chairman Doylen, Members Dekker, Gillette,
Newsom, and Sager
Building Official Allman, Deputy Clerk Kuehl
None
Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the August 3, 1994 meeting were approved as submitted.
MAJESTIC PINES SUBDIVISION. LOT 9, 1755 DEKKER CIRCLE, GARY AND
CINDY OLIVER/APPLICANTS - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE
Member Sager requested that Member Dekker abstain from discussion
and voting on this issue because of a conflict of interest. Member
Dekker objected stating the conflict of interest issue refers °nlY
to financial gain and one does not exist. Building Official John
Allman explained a variance is requested from Section 17-?p:040' B'
which requires a 25-foot setback, to accommodate the addition of a
deck, only one-third of which will require a varia.nc;® °
from the southwest corner tapering to no variance at the southeast
corner. Adjacent property owners were contacted and no objections
were received. A building permit was previously issued for
improvements on the house itself, not the deck. The
declared that the living room/kitchen area located on the south
side of the house is the desired location for the ProP°s®^^®c^'
Plus this location allows the open space to the west and north of
the house to remain for migration of elk and deer. Upon request o
open space clarification, Allman explained that no structures wer
in the area.
Member Sager explained the variance would n°t neoessa^ if the
orooosed deck were redesigned. Sager stated the Board
Adjustment powers and duties indicate that reasons for a variance
request include exceptional narrowness or topographic conditions,
shallowness or slope of property, or a."°th0enr
situation. AS none of these conditions exist this ProPe^^l^
Member Saqer asked Applicant for compelling reason for this
rSuJst; Applicant could not provide an answer. Chairman Doylen
diverted each member to use personal judgment regarding the
reasonableness of this request. It wasmovedand oecondea ^Sager
Newsom) the setback variance request be dsnie^d as this refusa
Mould still allow a deck redesigned to stay within the ai se?iLk^and the motion failed,y 2 to 3. Those voting against:
Dekker Doylen, and Gillette. After further discussion, it was
movel and seconded (Gillette-Doylen) the variance request be
apploved, and the motion passed, 3 to 2. Those voting against:
Newsom and Sager.
iiRn mowatnE avenue, twisted PINE FUR AND LEATHER CO., HENRY _A
glover/applicant - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Board of Adjustment, September 6, 1994 - Page 2
the C-0 zoning requirements, the building envelope is reduced to
8,890 square feet, or 20% of the area. Proposed redevelopment of
the property would not meet current standards but would improve
safety and aesthetics and eliminate an undefined curb cut by
creating an established parking lot entrance with designated
parking spaces and a landscaped buffer between the highway and the
property. Removing four existing buildings and expanding the
remaining building will comply with current setbacks and create
more efficient land use. The remodeled building will be used for
storage and include two employee housing units on second floor.
Following are the variances requested for the proposed improvements
to this property:
Description Code Requirement Existing New Development
Street Setback 25 ft.17.4 ft.17.9 ft.
High Water Setback 30 ft.9.5 ft.12.0 ft.
Building Bulk 25% useable area 5,933 sf 3,063 Sf 5,262 sf (commercial use)
1,600 sf (dwelling units)
Parking 1 space per 200 ft None designated Minimum 27 spaces
Buffer 25 ft.None 5
Building Official John Allman stated the numbers were verified with
Director Stamey and letters from surrounding property owners stated
no objection to the request. Member Sager commended Mr. Van Horn
for the submittal of the revised drawing, but was concerned the
proposed three employee parking spaces east of the development
would still encroach into the highway causing continued safety
concerns. It was moved and seconded (Sager-Dekker) to approve all
variances requested, with safety and highway access concerns
addressed by Special Review and the State Highway Commission when
the development plan is submitted to Planning Commission, and it
passed unanimously.
There being no further business, it was moved that the Board
adjourn to Executive Session. Those voting "Yes": Doylen, Dekker,
Gillette, Newsom, and Sager; those voting "No": none. The meeting
adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Ij
Tina Kuehl, Deputy Town Clerk