My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 08 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 08 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:03:12 PM
Creation date
8/21/2014 9:31:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2014 08 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 16, 2014 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />a. Located in Capitol Hill Subdivision <br />b. A 5 foot side yard setback variance and adjacent building <br />separation variance <br />c. Old Town Overlay requires a combined setback of 10 feet. Since <br />the existing structure is located 3 feet from the north property line, <br />the southern setback must remain 7 feet. The applicant is asking <br />for a 5 foot setback <br />d. The Old Town Overlay also requires a 10 foot separation from an <br />adjacent building. This new building will be just less than 8 feet <br />from the adjacent building <br />e. The variance request is to allow for an addition to an existing <br />garage <br />▪ Staff believes the criteria for a variance is not supported as the property may be <br />reasonably developed without the need of the variance <br />▪ Therefore staff recommends denial of the variance request. <br />Questions from Board to Staff:: <br />No questions were asked. <br />Applicant Presentation and questions from the Board to the applicant: <br />Rich Trevino presented the following facts from a PowerPoint: <br />• Owned property for 35 years.11. -.. <br />• Goal is to move back in to the property a • -. odeh , <br />• Has an antique vehicle he needs to be g <br />Questions of Staff /Applicant <br />No questions were asked. <br />Public Present in Opposition of Applicatiol <br />None heard. <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: <br />Carol Thiel, neighbor, spoke in favor of the request. She stated they have huge parking <br />issues on the neighborhood and understands the need for on -site parking. <br />Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: <br />Malmquist believes third request would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He <br />addressed the two criteria which were found not met by staff. He stated the applicants <br />presentation showed it was going to be a minimal addition and provided a good <br />alternative for parking issues. <br />Stuart stated he agreed and also was happy none of the neighbors complained. He <br />believes the criteria have been met. <br />Ewy did not agree with staff's analysis and believes all criteria have been met, <br />especially since this property is not alley loaded. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.