Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 Member Mulder asked if the applicant understood that the garage could be <br />2 expanded. Ms. Ericksen said she was not in favor of expanding the garage (it <br />3 would look larger than the house). <br />4 <br />5 Ms. Ericksen said she was surprised the shed and the variance were such an issue. <br />6 <br />7 Chair Klausing stated the lot is extremely large and not a problem in relation to <br />8 the building. <br />9 <br />10 No public comment was offered. Chair Klausing closed the public hearing. <br />11 <br />12 Member Mulder stated that was no hardship as defined in the Code. Alternatives <br />13 exist (at least two). <br />14 <br />15 Chair Klausing explained the Code and the test needed to find a physical <br />16 hardship. Other alternatives exist. <br />17 <br />18 Member Wilke agreed with Member Mulder; other options are available. <br />19 <br />20 Member Olson regretted the ultimate decision is to accept one large buildng <br />21 instead of two medium sized buildings. <br />22 <br />23 Chair Klausing noted that he could not recommend approval of this application. <br />24 <br />25 Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />26 denial by adopting Resolution 3272, setting forth findings in the case of the <br />27 application by Natalija Ericksen, 2376 Cohansey Street, for a 264 square foot <br />28 variance from Section 1004.01A6. <br />29 <br />30 Ayes: 4, Klausing, Olson, Mulder, Wilke <br />31 Nays: 0 <br />32 Motion to deny carried. <br />33 <br />