Laserfiche WebLink
,o Ken Cailahan _ <br /> ���M Public Works <br /> OATE $-1'HO <br /> PanCTWO4.�.A. urv �n ivin� i�, �vi �,� i� wntdurn.i�,n <br /> SUCJCGT p <br /> This department does not oppose a v�riance for fence height on tl�:s <br /> property providinn the variance stipulates tull rompliancc with th : property <br /> dedication portion ot Ordinance SSG-78 and that the fence be corc,tructed <br /> ' in excess oi 40 teet from the centerline of Casino Road (on priva[e property <br /> not necded for strect improvement). <br /> Granting a variancc Withoui this stipulation would grant fliblc t3anc�s: <br /> Church a privilegc that is not consistcnt v�ith what all othcr property <br /> owners along Casino Road have becn required to provide. Also, if purehase <br /> or condemnation oi the right-ot-way becomes necessary, costs of damages <br /> for removal and replacement of the fence would accrue to the public <br /> and other owners along Casino Road. The strcet improvement is imminent� <br /> design for the improvemcnt has beg�m• <br /> 7'he 13oard ot Adjustment is requcsted to place the dced for riRht-of-way <br /> as a stip___��a?1O�°� ihe vanancc. <br /> Item ll9 3327 Hoyt - Parking Variance f'roposal frnm 24 Otf-street Stalls to IG <br /> Otf-street Stalls <br /> Given the nature of the proposal (etticiency units), it is not expected <br /> that a variance will add to th<e on-strcet parking demands o[ the area. <br /> Item II10 5206 Seahurst - Front Yard Setback Variance <br /> Variance scems ap,xopriatc. Thc crror made is all too common. Howcvcr, <br /> it appcars to be an honcst mistake and the ou•ncr should not be unduly <br /> penalized. If landscaping, tencing or regrading Would reduce the neighborhood <br /> impact, then it w�uld lx justified. It not, suggest variance with no conditions. <br /> CiS:is <br />