My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Documents 1987
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
1974-1998 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
1987 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Documents 1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:05:04 PM
Creation date
12/15/2006 11:11:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOADOCS 1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 COMMENTS: <br /> <br />Pendergrast asked if he was closer than 25' to the back of the <br />sidewalk. Does the sidewalk set in on the 25' setback in the <br />front? Shonkwiler stated that the sidewalks are set inside the <br />right-of-way by about 2 1/2 feet. A improvement survey was <br />submitted that shows that setback. <br /> <br />Pendergrast asked who the original architect for this house was? <br />Shonkwiler stated that he was. There is just no reasonable way <br />to add on, I can not come in from Tyler Avenue without a rear <br />yard setback violation. If I were to go further back and meet <br />the setback requirements I would actually be building a house and <br />impacting my neighbor more completely than I am now. By keeping <br />this to the fuller part of the lot I actually give the neighbor <br />more room on the side yard before you get to my house. <br /> <br />Sears asked what the lot coverage was going to be as a result of <br />this addition? Shonkwiler stated that it was going to be about <br />15 or 16%. <br /> <br />Swires asked what the normal front yard setback was? <br />that in that subdivision the front yard setback is <br />rear and 8' sideyard. <br /> <br />Ewan stated <br />25' and 25' <br /> <br />Ross asked if on the petition, the owner of the adjacent property <br />signed. Shonkwiler stated it was vacant lot. <br /> <br />Chairman Sears closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion was made by Ross, seconded by <br />variance. All in favor. Vote 5-0. <br /> <br />Swires, <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />grant <br /> <br />the <br /> <br />5. BOARD COMMENTS <br /> <br />Ross asked if Wanush if he would explain a little bit about what <br />the meeting in May will consist of. Wanush stated there is <br />subdivision, Westfield II, in which there are a series of <br />building that McStain is putting up. They are six-unit buildings <br />and they are starting to build the building #11. In order to put <br />building #11 on the site McStain required an amendment to the PUD <br />which was a 6' change in where the building was sited on the <br />property. The ordinance allows the Director of Community <br />Development to make a "minor amendment" to PUD's. In looking at <br />this I determined this was a minor change, then authorized Mr. <br />Ewan to issue a building permit. Permits were issued, <br />construction began, a neighbor thought my decision was in error. <br />The procedure then is to file an appeal. That appeal will then <br />come before you at the next meeting. What you will have to <br />determine is if this a major amendment or a minor amendment to <br />the PUD. This issue is of a different nature than the Board <br />normally reviews. <br /> <br />6. STAFF COMMENTS <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.