Laserfiche WebLink
BACKGROUND (Continued) <br /> 9/05/2007 The City's Building Official inspected the structural repairs to the shed addition <br /> and determined that they were completed in accordance with the previously <br /> reviewed plans. Therefore the shed addition to the garage meets all of the city's <br /> ordinances and is no longer an issue. <br /> 10/01/2007 The Community Development Department informed Mr. Muehlstedt that the <br /> existing garage was believed to be closer than five feet to the property line and <br /> that a Variance would be required to allow it to remain in its current state. <br /> 10/17/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted an application for a Variance to allow the existing <br /> structure to remain. <br /> 10/17/2007 The neighboring property owner raised the issue that Mr.Muehlstedt's fence was <br /> actually sited over the property line. <br /> 10/23/2007 Staff requested that Mr.Muehlstedt obtain an updated survey so that the extent of <br /> the encroachment could be clearly identified. <br /> 10/26/2007 The city's Building Official informed the City Council and City Attorney of the <br /> review process of Mr. Muehlstedt's shed addition. This memorandum is <br /> attached, and staff considers this issue to be closed. <br /> 10/29/2007 Kurth Surveying issued an update to the 2004 survey of the neighboring <br /> property. This update is hand written and states that the location of Mr. <br /> Muehlstedt's fence was known to be encroaching when the survey was <br /> completed,but no information as to this fact was shown on the survey at the <br /> time. This survey indicated that the fence encroaches as much as 0.3 feet onto <br /> the neighboring property. <br /> 11/14/2007 The neighboring property owner attended the Planning and Zoning Board <br /> meeting to speak at open mike. They expressed concern over the delay in having <br /> the action heard, and over the structural repairs to the shed addition that were <br /> completed by Mr. Muehlstedt. Staff explained that an updated survey would be <br /> the best avenue to define the Variance requests. As of September 5,2007 the <br /> shed addition was considered to be completely in compliance with the city's <br /> ordinances and is therefore not an issue. <br /> 12/10/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted a new certificate of survey which is the basis of this <br /> application and review. <br /> VARIANCE FINDINGS <br /> In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the <br /> City shall make a finding of fact: <br /> a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used <br /> under conditions allowed by the official controls. <br /> Reasonable use of the garage, which was permitted, constructed, and <br /> inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback; would be <br /> eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. <br />