My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2010 05 19
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2010 05 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:03:10 PM
Creation date
6/11/2010 11:09:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2010 05 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 />July 15, 2009 <br />Page 7 of 12 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Malmquist stated that he agreed with Jasiak's statement. <br /> <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 w~!iP.ave had the <br />opportunity to review the decks prior to them being built so al ' atives could have been <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Loeblich stated he believes both the upper deck and I d mply with the criteria <br /> <br />:~~a~;~e~~:s~e~~rt~:e:O:~;eh:~e;~~~~r discus~~earing none h <br /> <br />motion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Motion and Vote: <br />McCartney recommended that the Board consi&Vo <br />requests since the Board was havi g 'ssues with d <br />variance requests are as follows: <br /> <br />1. To reduce the rear setback re <br />story covered deck. <br />2. To reduce the rea <br />Aryo <br />one story cove eo <br /> <br />Jasiak moved an~!%r",e Iich se"co"fu%,..~... e,d, ,a mdti~,~"l to approve the variance request number <br /> <br />:d;~~~t It~ ~~:~~Sfl~~.,t~~e~u~~~~~\~~~t~~ ~:~~~B feet <br />Mcca~~'ued wlth.,mBoard their understanding of the motion. <br />Roll 08!f;i ote: <br /> <br />eparately on the variance <br />e variance requests. The <br /> <br /> <br />~Erik Jasiak No ... <br />Gllnnar Maim No <br />James"Stuart No <br />Horst ~oebJich Yes <br />Wa ne Chancellor excused <br />Motion #1 denied: 3 to 1 <br /> <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 /> <br />McCartney clarified with the Board their understanding of the motion. <br /> <br />G:\Board of Adjustment\BOA 2010\05.19.201 O\Complete Packet\02.BOA.07.15.09.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.