My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2021 08 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2021 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2021 08 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2021 2:12:53 PM
Creation date
8/16/2021 2:22:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/18/2021
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.
/
61
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 />January 20, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Criteria 3 - Criterion Met <br />• The property would not be able to be reasonably developed in conformity <br />because the zoning would limit the ability to cover the deck. <br />Criteria 4 - Criterion Met <br />This hardship has not been created by the applicant because the condition of the <br />lot shape is a result of the 1978 subdivision. <br />Criteria 5 - Criterion Met <br />• This variance approval will not alter the character of the neighborhood because <br />the property backs to a city -owned lot, limiting any potential impacts. <br />• Adjacent property owners have signed support letter <br />Cooper asks if staff can define what a city -owned lot is. <br />Zuccaro shows the applicant's property. When the properties were platted, this parcel <br />of land was given to the City for utility purposes. The property owner is not adjacent to <br />another homeowner, but to the city property. That is what we are referring to. <br />Cooper asks that if in the future, the City no longer needs to use it for utility purposes, <br />can that parcel be developed that would impact the property? <br />Zuccaro says no, because of the location and size of the lot, he cannot think of what <br />the use would be for that property. <br />Mihaly points out that in the staff report, the citywide map on page one shows the <br />wrong location. <br />Criteria 6 - Criterion Met <br />This is the minimum variance and least modification possible because a further <br />setback would result in a 6' deep deck that would not be functional. The applicant <br />has also noted that the roof structure will enable use of the west -facing deck <br />when there is a strong afternoon sun. <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 />Mihaly asks if there were letters of support in the meeting packet. <br />Zuccaro says there are two letters of support and shows where they are in the packet. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Amber Stewart, architect for homeowner <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.