My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2022 02 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2022 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2022 02 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 5:10:52 PM
Creation date
2/16/2022 11:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/16/2022
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.
/
36
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 />August 18, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />opposition came in from 377 Centennial Drive, which was added to the packet as <br />an addendum item. <br />Criteria 6 - Criterion Met <br />As mentioned in previous findings, building the addition any further in to meet <br />setbacks for the nonconforming corner would result in a support structure in the <br />garage space, creating a less usable garage, meaning the current level of <br />encroachment is the minimum variance that would afford relief for this scope of <br />work. <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff finds that all six criteria in Municipal code Section 17.48.110 are met and <br />recommends approval with no conditions. <br />Board Questions of Staff: <br />Milhaly asks staff for confirmation that since the existing footprint is staying the same <br />and the proposal is just for going up, they are not increasing the existing variance. <br />Hassan says that is correct. <br />Cooper mentions that staff noted that there is mature landscaping that goes with the <br />size of the property. Based on staff's photos, it does not look like there are any two- <br />story houses next to the applicant's house. Is there any way to ensure that the mature <br />landscaping stays with this property? <br />Hassan says it is not a typical city request. <br />Ritchie says that generally staff does not make conditions that relate to landscaping <br />because it is difficult to enforce over time. For that reason, she would not recommend <br />an approval with that type of condition. <br />Milhaly says that if this is approved, that does not give the owner permission or <br />authority to go beyond what is proposed. That would be a separate application correct? <br />Hassan confirms that is correct. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Jed Staufer, property owner of 2321 Sunland St <br />Staufer reiterates that their proposal is to build straight up. The second story will not cut <br />into the setback. He mentions that he believes the two-story home will fit in well with the <br />overall character of the neighborhood. They have seven letters of support for their <br />proposal. <br />Board Questions of Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />Public Comment <br />None heard. <br />Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: <br />None heard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.