Laserfiche WebLink
Mrs. Choitz asked what the intended purpose of the chain-link <br />was -- perhaps a dog run? Mr. Pastor replied that the owners had <br />not told him the purpose of the fence, merely that they wanted <br />to "fence in the back yard." <br />Mr. Eide moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Mr. <br />Welsheimer seconded the motion. <br />No further discussion followed. <br />Motion Approved unanimously. <br />2. 517 Edgewater Drive -- Edgewater Drive LHD <br />Mr. Pastor announced that the owner, Mr. Joel Mesecar, was <br />not present; he then distributed photographs and described the <br />proposal. The owner asked to construct a deck, 12' by 18' in <br />size, across the street from his property, on the east side of <br />steps leading down to a pier accessing the St. Joseph River. <br />Mr. Pastor told the commission that he and Mr. Holycross had <br />visited the site and measured the space intended to accommodate <br />the deck and that he wanted to submit a favorable recommendation <br />in light of this visit and asked that the HPC disregard his <br />submitted staff report with a negative recommendation. He then <br />asked that the HPC consider the height of the deck railings when <br />they made their decision. <br />Mrs. Choitz inquired whether the deck was to be level with the <br />street and whether there would be steps. Mr. Pastor answered <br />that it was approximately three feet below street grade. Mr. <br />Holycross then described the intended position relative to the <br />street. <br />Mrs. Choitz then asked whether or not the top railing could be <br />viewed from the street. Mr. Holycross answered that it could. <br />Discussion concerning railing height and city code requirements <br />ensued. Staff replied that the plan was within code. <br />Mrs. Sporleder asked for clarification concerning the height of <br />the deck relative to river level. Mr. Holycross replied that it <br />would be approximately six feet above the river. . <br />Mr. Oxian asked whether the deck was to include additional <br />rails, as the submitted plan showed only a top and bottom rail. <br />Mr. Holycross replied that the submitted plan also showed <br />additional slats between rail supports. <br />Mrs. Sporleder asked whether the owner intended to control <br />erosion under the deck in any way. Mr. Holycross replied that <br />they had not proposed anything to account for erosion and that <br />the area was "scrubby." <br />2 <br />