My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Minutes 2007 12 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2007 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Minutes 2007 12 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:05:06 PM
Creation date
4/4/2008 10:23:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAMIN 2007 12 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
<br />Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 19, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />Chancellor, Kelly and Stuart discussed with staff the following: <br />. What other historic homes are in the neighborhood. <br />. Criteria #2 regarding unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist <br />throughout the neighborhood or district. <br />. Criteria #4 regarding an unnecessary hardship has not been created by the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />McClesky thanked staff for the completeness of the report. He also stated that he and <br />his architect feel that the 4: 12 roof pitch is less imposing to the character of the home. <br /> <br />Questions of Applicant bv Board and Staff: <br />Malmquist stated that the addition would not been seen from the street. <br /> <br />Chancellor asked if other homes in the neighborhood had the 4: 12 or 6: 12 roof pitch. <br /> <br />McCartney stated that the majority of homes built in the early 1900's had the 4: 12 roof <br />pitch. <br /> <br />Cordell inquired about an addition that appeared to not be in very good condition and <br />what did the applicant intend to do to that addition. <br /> <br />McClesky stated the foundation of that addition was not good, therefore the addition <br />would be removed, a new foundation set or the new addition. <br /> <br />Malmquist inquired about the garage. <br /> <br />McClesky stated the garage was to remain as is on the site. <br /> <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: <br /> <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Public Present in Opposition of Application: <br /> <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Staff and Applicant Closinq Comments: <br />No additional comments by either the staff or applicant. <br /> <br />Public Hearinq Closed / Board Discussion: <br /> <br />Stuart closed the public hearing and requested Board discussion. <br /> <br />Chancellor, Loeblich, and Kelly focused their discussion on Criteria #1 and #3 to <br />determine if the criteria had been met as reported by staff. <br /> <br />. Criteria #1: That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions such <br />as irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical <br />or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property. <br />1. The applicant desires to retain the architectural attribute of the <br />historical structure, one window on the east side of the home. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.