My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-10 Council Agenda & Packet
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Common Council Agenda Packets
>
2010
>
05-10-10 Council Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2010 3:47:16 PM
Creation date
5/6/2010 10:35:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 201:0 <br />MR. HAWLEY: I'II second that. <br />MR. URBANSKI: I guess one of the things that I have thought about is on this, is to approve the variances <br />and put it aver to the Council. As you well know I don't like to take it off of us, okay. That was icy <br />thoughts. Do we have any other questions on the motion`? <br />MR. MATTHYS: If we were to approve the motion here now, it would basically die. <br />MR. URBANSKI: Correct, it would die before it goes to the Council. <br />MR. FEDDER: Na if it dies it will ga to the City Council with an unfavorable recoi:cimendatian. <br />MR. URBANSKI: If we deny the variances they cannot... so I said the wrong thing at the start of this <br />meeting when we didn't have the final answer of the recammendatian and I stand corrected. <br />MR. MATTHYS: So if we were to make a motion that approved the variances and it went to the City <br />Council and they denied the Special Exception, Special Use, then what happens to the duplex? It goes back <br />to being grandfafhered the way it was. The existing non-conforming, exactly as it is? <br />MR. URBANSKI: So that was my thought is if we send it, it's not that... <br />MR. LANG: A lot of the variances that we're asking far here is for the existing side yards far the buildings <br />that are already there. . <br />MR. URBANSKI: So here is one of my difficulties are, okay? We have a duplex sitting on two lots. One of <br />the lots has to be 40' x 30'... <br />MR. LANG: I think it's 40' x40'. <br />MR. URBANSKI: 40 X 40 and the lot the petitioner wanted to build a house on that lot in the back, okay? <br />If we approve everything except for the square footage of the lot far the buildable site, we would actually <br />clean up the site. <br />MR. LANG: Correct. <br />MR. URBANSKI: As we did on three or four others. So what I'm saying by this then is the idea of the lot <br />lines. The lot line configuration which. will put both of the houses that are on the property an a lot by <br />themselves at this time. <br />MR. LYONS: He has to have the Special Use .._ <br />MR. URBANSKI: He has to have the Special Use to have the duplex back there? <br />83 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.