Laserfiche WebLink
~'x'tract,Of <Minutes <br />'Page 2 ,. <br />Chairman Williams stated: if .Commissioner Baker's interpretation <br />of the code--was correct a 2<foot..variance would be required. <br />Mr. Lawson :asked what the setback:~for a fence was. <br />Staff responded thata fence can be placed`on the property <br />line. <br />Motion by Williams, seconded by, Baker to closethe publichearing.. <br />7 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br />Motion by Baker, seconded by Solberg, ~to waive the reading and approve <br />a RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VN-238 <br />with the following changes to the resolution prepared by staff: <br />1. That under WHEREAS therebe added:. <br />#3. That the deck replaced an existing older unsafe deck. <br />#4. That since the deck was a replacement of an existing <br />deck theapplicant would have been permitted to repair <br />the existing deck up to 50 percent of its current <br />value without a permit from the .City.. <br />2: That under NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the following be <br />.changed/added: <br />#2. That the required side street yard setback for the <br />deck is 2 feet under Section 4-580(b):of the <br />zoning code. <br />#4. Be eliminated. <br />#5. That the deck is in the side rear yard and does not ' <br />obstruct the visibility of, traffic or adjacent <br />neighbors. <br />Commissioner Leverkuhn stated he would vote in favor of the. motion but <br />.would go on record as being opposed to granting of a variance after <br />the fact. <br />Commissioner Baker stated that in this case the applicant would have <br />been allowed to replace the deck piecemeal without a permit from the <br />City. <br />7 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br />