03-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ciiflis stilled llic existing gnrngc is lonoled between two nnd n hnlf to three I’ccI from the properly line nnd if tlic pilch of (lie roor is increased, it would rc(|uire a variance. Christensen staled he ct»iild reduce the slab to eiglil by ten. Murphy noted the shed would be close to the projierty line. I / Garfron pointed out the shed would also be located very close (6 the traveled portion of the roadway.i ■ • • I Christensen slated the shed would be leinporary while construetinn on the house is going on. Murphy iiu|uiied when consliuclion on the garage i.s expected to coniincnce. Christensen staled he would like to start constriielion on the garage once the house is completed and that he is hopeful the project could be completed by the end of the summer. Sanscverc suggested putting a deadline for when the shed has to be removed. Curtis noted a variance would be required to raise the pitch of the roof. i ’ - ' » CMuisten.seii commented his neighbor is fine with raising the pitch of the roof on the garage. McMillan inquired how .Staff would enforce the removal of the shed in the future. (ialTioii staled one option would be to require icmoval of the shed prior to fmal ins|)cclion. Murphy inquired whether the applicant is in agreement to remove the shed in the future. Christensen indicated he is willing to remove the shed, (,'hrislcnscn noted he also is in agreement /.. ■ ■ ^ . '; with removal of the other items mentioned hy slafT. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for Applicaiion M05-307N, 3.S60 Ivy I'larr, subject to conditions one and lw*» outlined in the March 8,2005 IManner ’s Report, and further subject to the understanding that the shed may be used for trniporary stonige through construction but niusf be removed by the applicants* move in diite or Deeembrr I, 2005. Vtn'K: Ayes 4, Nays 0.