My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2009 09 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2009 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:25:31 PM
Creation date
11/30/2009 11:32:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2009 09 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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 15, 2009 <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />McCartney recommended that they look at the case both as a built element and un-built <br />element. Once they have done this, how would their opinion change if the element was <br />not built. <br />Jasiak stated if he looked at this request if it were un-built then he would consider <br />criteria numbers 3 and 6 as met (for the lower deck) but not for the upper deck. <br />Malmquist stated that he agreed with Jasiak's statement. <br />Stuart stated he agreed with Jasiak as well — the lower deck is not as much of an issue <br />as the upper deck. Stuart also stated he wished the Board would have had the <br />opportunity to review the decks prior to them being built so alternatives could have been <br />discussed. <br />Loeblich stated he believes both the upper deck and lower deck comply with the criteria <br />and should be approved as requested. <br />Stuart requested if the board had further discussion. Hearing none he requested a <br />motion. <br />Motion and Vote: <br />McCartney recommended that the Board consider voting separately on the variance <br />requests since the Board was having issues with one of the variance requests. The <br />variance requests are as follows: <br />1. To reduce the rear setback re <br />story covered deck. <br />2. To reduce the re <br />one story cove <br />Jasiak moved an <br />1, which is a requ <br />adjacent to the two s <br />McCartn <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />m 15 feet to 9 feet adjacent to the two <br />ack requ emen atom feet to 11 feet adjacent to the <br />lich secon <br />reduce the <br />oard their u <br />ed a mo <br />rear setb <br />on to approve the variance request number <br />requirement from 15 feet to 9 feet <br />by staff in the Staff Report. <br />standing of the motion. <br />Erik Jasiak <br />No <br />Gunnar Malmquist <br />No <br />James Stuart <br />No <br />Horst Loeblich <br />Yes <br />Wayne Chancellor <br />excused <br />Motion #1 denied: 3 to 1 <br />Jasiak moved and Malmquist seconded a motion to approve the variance request <br />number 2, which is a request to reduce the rear setback requirement from 15 feet to 11 <br />feet adjacent to the one story covered deck, as stated by staff in the Staff Report. <br />McCartney clarified with the Board their understanding of the motion. <br />G:\MINUTES\Bd. Adj\2009\BOA.07.15.09.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.