My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES 06-25-2019
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Board of Adjustments
>
BOA Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
06-25-2019
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES 06-25-2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2019 3:17:44 PM
Creation date
6/20/2019 3:17:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
BASR
date
6/25/2019
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).
View images
View plain text
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 <br />May 28, 2019 <br />----------------------------- <br />behind his property and from his patio window. He felt the proposed deck is less of <br />an encumbrance than what the garage would be and stated it would be more <br />appealing. He disagreed garages are not habitable and that he spends a lot of time in <br />his garage. He indicated there are no utilities below where he would be building the <br />deck. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked why building a deck 2.5’ smaller isn’t an option for <br />the applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Lillestrand indicated, based on his blue prints, that placement of a grill, patio <br />table, and chairs wouldn’t be possible if the deck was 2.5’ smaller, and therefore he <br />would have to reconfigure the plans. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thiel stated since he’s been on the Board of Adjustments there was a <br />very similar request by another resident. He wondered why Mr. Lillestrand couldn’t <br />choose to move the deck over 2.5 feet and therefore not require a variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Lillestrand stated that would cause a roofline issue with that suggested proposal <br />and explained he felt limited by the current roofline and window placement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Feinstein wondered why the applicant couldn’t reposition his grill in a <br />different area. <br /> <br />Mr. Lillestrand felt this would be tight quarters for grilling. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked about the location of the deck in relation to the <br />garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Lillestrand stated the deck portion is behind the garage and the 3-season porch <br />portion is directly behind the house. He stated he would hate to give up the view <br />from his picture window of the wetland and wildlife behind his house by moving the <br />deck and three season porch to the side of the house. <br /> <br />Commissioner Feinstein discussed some less obtrusive handrail and stair rail options. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked about another option by repositioning the staircase to give him <br />more space on the deck and obstruct his view, which in turn wouldn’t require a <br />variance. He stated he understands his request but felt there were other options <br />available that wouldn’t require a variance. <br /> <br />There being no one else to speak, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if the next door neighbor requested a similar <br />variance, how far apart would that put the structures. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated it would be 15’ between decks. He noted there are homes in the <br />city that are 10’ apart. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.