My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Minutes 2006 10 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2006 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Minutes 2006 10 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:05:05 PM
Creation date
12/1/2006 9:31:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAMIN 2006 10 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />OCTOBER 16, 2006 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />McCartney stated that the applicant is the original owner. <br /> <br />Chancellor asked for clarification of criterion #1 and why it had not been met. <br /> <br />McCartney stated that the applicant purchased the property knowing that a hardship existed. <br /> <br />Cordell asked if a road noise analysis had been completed. <br /> <br />McCartney stated he was not aware that one had been done. <br /> <br />Kelly reviewed the vegetation alternative as presented in the Staff Report and stated that it <br />applies to criterion #6. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Terry Lenertz, applicant's representative, distributed a copy of the applicant's rebuttal to the <br />recommendation of denial from staff. He discussed the development of McCaslin and how it had <br />changed since the Hilltop Subdivision had been developed. He also noted the signatures of the <br />neighbors that support the request. <br /> <br />Board Questions of Applicant: <br />Loeblich asked how the signatures were obtained. <br /> <br />Lenertz stated that Mr. Stuart had gone door to door. <br /> <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Public Present in Opposition of Application: <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Staff Closing Comments: <br />McCartney briefly discussed that the type of vegetation that could be used could be something <br />other then what had been recommended by staff. The City Forester would be a good resource <br />person for the selection of what type of vegetation to use. <br /> <br />McCartney requested that the Board enter into record the items presented by Lenertz. <br /> <br />Malmquist moved and Cordell seconded a motion to enter those items into public record. Motion <br />passed by voice vote. <br /> <br />Applicant Closing Comments: <br />Lenertz stated that even with an 8-foot height for a portion of the ISO-feet it would still be below <br />the grade of the road. He can understand the recommendation by staff for the vegetation <br />alternative but also knows that vegetation can not provide the needed sound buffering of the <br />traffic. <br /> <br />Question of Staff: <br />Chancellor asked if the current fence is on the property line or in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />McCartney stated that the fence is on the property line. <br /> <br />Cordell asked if the use of additional plantings would reduce the traffic noise. <br /> <br />McCartney stated that planting would provide relief but probably not as much as a brick wall <br />would provide. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.