Laserfiche WebLink
� 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 />s <br />6 <br />� <br />s <br />9 <br />io <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />is <br />16 <br />17 <br />is <br />19 <br />20 <br />2� <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />2� <br />2g <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />Ms. Ericksen said she was surprised the shed and the variance were such an issue. <br />Chair Klausing stated the lot is extremely large and not a problem in relation to <br />the building. <br />No public comment was offered. Chair Klausing closed the public hearing. <br />Member Mulder stated that was no hardship as defined in the Code. Alternatives <br />e�st (at least two). <br />Chair Klausing explained the Code and the test needed to fmd a physical <br />hardship. Other alternatives exist. <br />Member Wilke agreed with Member Mulder; other options are available. <br />Member Olson regretted the ultimate decision is to accept one large buildng <br />instead of two medium sized buildings. <br />Chair Klausing noted that he could not recommend approval of this application. <br />�Iotion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />denial by adopting Resolution 3272, setting forth findings in the case of the <br />application by Natalija Ericksen, 2376 Cohansey Street, for a 264 square foot <br />variance from Section 1004.O1A6. <br />Ayes: 4, Klausing, Olson, Mulder, Wilke <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion to deny carried. <br />