Laserfiche WebLink
Mike and Della O'Neal, of 4040 Sage Trail, in favor of the request since the Baileys' yard is well <br />kept. <br />Timothy Stephens, of 460 SW 41St St, in favor of the request. <br />Billy and Fay Stephens, of 510 SW 41St St, in favor of the request since the Baileys' are one of the <br />best neighbors they have. <br />Public hearing was declared open. <br />No one spoke in favor or opposition. <br />Public hearing was declared closed. <br />Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook, makes note of the neighboring property to the west that seems <br />to have a similar addition on their home for storage. <br />William Sanders, board member, speaks in favor of the denial since he believes not allowing the <br />construction of the carport will protect the appearance of the neighborhood. <br />Larry Walker, board member, makes note of the several accessory structures that already exist. <br />Sequoia Bruce, board member, states that the construction of the carport in the front would not be <br />cosmetically appealing on the front of the home versus being built on the side or in the rear yard. <br />She also makes note that there does not appear to be any carports constructed in the front in the <br />surrounding area. <br />Jerry Haning, board member, speaks in favor of the variance by mentioning the input letters from <br />the neighbors in favor of the carport and since the carport will be open and not closed like the <br />structure on the neighboring lot. <br />Chairperson RuthAnn Alsobrook speaks in favor of the variance stating that it is a quiet street, <br />little traffic and does not see it being a safety issue. <br />Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by Larry Walker to deny the 17' variance to the <br />Build Line for the construction of a carport based upon the following staff recommended findings <br />of fact. Motion carried 3:2, with Jerry Haning and RuthAnn Alsobrook as the dissenting votes. <br />Staff Recommended Findin as of Fact <br />1. There are no unique conditions or features of the property not generally in common to other <br />properties in the development. <br />2. There is no hardship identified with this request given the fact that the lot is developed <br />