My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 06 17
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2020 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 06 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2020 10:26:49 AM
Creation date
6/12/2020 8:30:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/17/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 />May 20, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />Mihaly says he is trying to visualize how turning into the garage would work from the <br />street. <br />Ritchie says the intent is to keep the vehicular movement within the alley portion of the <br />sidewalk, but agrees that the movement is probably an awkward one from a driving <br />perspective. As a user, this is not ideal and staff recognizes that, but the applicant has <br />accommodated it into their design well and this is the proposal that they have agreed <br />that they can live with. <br />Public Comment in Favor: <br />None heard. <br />Public Comment Aqainst: <br />Mona Newton, 708 Grant Ave <br />Newton believes it is important for the board members to visit the site. She is afraid that <br />the proposed design will overshadow the neighboring houses and change the character <br />of the neighborhood. The entryway for the garage is also concerning to her. <br />David Lewis, 708 Grant Ave <br />Lewis believes the scale of size is too big and inappropriate. There is an effort to <br />maintain the old structure, but the back end of the building is going to be torn off and <br />rebuilt. He does not think it is the job of the board to find a solution for this property. He <br />is not opposed to a variance in general, but thinks the applicant should go back to the <br />drawing board for this design. <br />Michael Deborski, 601 Pine St <br />Deborski has seen the proposed floor plan from the applicant but he did not see the <br />elevations. The elevations shown is what started his concerns and believes it is out of <br />proportion from the lot. He agrees with the other neighbors that the structure is too large <br />for the lot. He thinks the applicant should modify their plans and remove the second <br />story on the garage, which would help sun exposure for the neighbors. He lastly <br />discusses drainage issues and he wishes to see what the drainage plan will be for this <br />property. <br />Cate Lowman <br />Lowman says that when she realized the height of the building and the side of the <br />house would be going out into the alley, it was despairing how much light the neighbors <br />would be losing. She further discusses her concerns of losing sun exposure and how <br />this will affect her backyard with the applicant's proposed design. She also mentions <br />that she thinks the building looks like it is a multi -use building and that it does not seem <br />to fit the character of Old Town. She brings up problems that can arise when having a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.