My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 09201983
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1983
>
PL PACKET 09201983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:30:48 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:30:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1983
SP Name
PL PACKET 09201983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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).
View images
View plain text
-4- <br /> The minister told the Chair he was certain the building committee • <br /> would be amenable to providing opaque windows for the Sunday school <br /> rooms because that would prevent the children from being distracted <br /> during class . <br /> Commissioner Bowerman indicated he was having trouble making a decision <br /> on the proposal without seeing what actual elevations, exterior <br /> finish and roof line would be provided. Mr. Jones said he was sorry <br /> he had not brought the elevation drawings which he had presented at <br /> the July 19th meeting .back to this hearing , but ass.ured the Commis- <br /> sioner that the building would be designed to match the fascia and <br /> roof line of the existing building as closely as possible. The <br /> elevation of the building above grade, he said, would be 2.4 feet 8 inches. <br /> Gundrun Hodenfield, 1401 Mooney Drive;. Mary Jane Johnson, 3132 Silver <br /> Lake Road; and Paul Stewart, 3085 Old Highway 8, indicated they would <br /> be in favor of granting the permit but chose not to speak further to <br /> the issue at that time . <br /> Donald Esau, 3505 - 36th Avenue N.E. , read his prepared statement in <br /> which he reiterated his own and his neighbors ' objections to the <br /> construction of the addition on the south side of the existing build- <br /> ing and requested the City not compound what he perceives to be the <br /> original error in permitting the church to construct the existing <br /> building perpendicular to the adjoining homes on the south and only <br /> 15 feet from the lot line on that side at the same time the elevations <br /> of the church property were elevated approximately eight feet above <br /> the residential lots adjacent to it. He contended the proponents <br /> could not accurately indicate on the application form that the proposed <br /> addition would not be "detrimental to the health , safety , and general <br /> welfare" of at least two of the neighbors since he believes both he and <br /> the Antczaks would suffer decreased property values as a result of the <br /> addition and a personal loss to his family of the benefits of the new <br /> family room and deck he had added to the back of his home not fore- <br /> seeing an addition would be made to the existing church building . <br /> Mr . Esau then indicated he saw no relevance in the tradeoff of property <br /> 20 years ago to the current proposal and told the Commission members <br /> . he has always considered the cottonwood tree on the church property <br /> to be a real nuisance and had intended asking that it be cut down. <br /> Commissioner Bowerman told Mr. Esau having homes in the City built <br /> perpendicular to each other and with less than 15 foot side yards is <br /> not unusual at all and the church could have built within five feet <br /> of the lot line under the City ordinance. He said his home on Croft <br /> Drive in which he lived for 15 years was only 7� feet from the lot <br /> line and his neighbors back yard was also perpendicular to his . Mr. <br /> Esau still -insisted the back yard setback requirement should have <br /> been applied in a case like this . <br /> Erling Weiberg, 3409 - 36th Avenue N.E. , read the written statement <br /> from Larry and Sandy., Antczak, who live directly south of the church <br /> at 3501 - 36th Avenue N.E. , who were away on vacation, in which they • <br /> reiterated the objection they had made during the July 19th hearing to <br /> the expansion which, in their .view, was "too large and too close to <br /> single family dwellings; could only intensify the water runoff problems <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.