CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Gina Agron | 4/11/2013 4:57:34 PM |
| Recommend approval of this variance given that (1) there was a previous structure on this property and (2) the current owner purchased the property with the intent to rebuild. Strict application of the required yard setbacks would impose an undue hardship on the applicants/landowners. Approving a variance would not adversely impact the neighborhood or roadways. Please approve the application for a variance and allow development of this Eagle River property. | |
| Jack & Ronda Stoebner | 4/11/2013 1:49:54 PM |
| We live just 2 doors down from this lot and we have no objections to the request for variance. | |
| Mike & Diane Thomas | 4/9/2013 8:59:19 PM |
| We live 2 lots away from the lot where the variance is being requested. We have no objections to the variance. The house previously on the lot more than likely encroached on the required setback but did not detract from the neighborhood in any way. I understand that the variance requested is to allow an encroachment into the required setback for the possibility that Upper Skyline Dr be extended to the west. I do not believe that that extension would ever happen. Not only is it not necessary for access, but the roadway would have to be incredibly steep. | |
| Gregory and Julie Wohrle | 4/9/2013 5:16:37 PM |
| We support this request for a variance from the front yard setback requirement. We live nearby and are very familiar with this lot. There is a "shelf" at the top of the lot where the old house used to sit that is the obvious location on which to site a home. Given the 60' easement that runs along the front yard, and the size of the homes in the neighborhood (which are generally larger homes), it seems appropriate to allow encroachment into the setback area so that a house can be constructed that fits in with the other homes in the area. | |
| Linda & Brett McBryde | 4/7/2013 1:24:53 PM |
| No objections. A house existed on that lot before. It seems reasonable that construction of another home on the same lot should be allowed. | |
| Brian & Janell Heagy | 4/7/2013 1:15:20 PM |
| We have no objection to the requested variance. | |
| John Carothers | 4/6/2013 7:21:21 PM |
| We live just around the corner of the property in question and have no objections to the variance requested. There is no reason that the mandatory 25 foot set-back from the front of this property would be necessary as the orientation of the property is at the end of Upper Skyline and is in such a manner that there will never be a through road created. The said variance would allow the property to be built upon and will help the development of the area. We have lived in our current location long enough to have been here when the prior house built at that location was there and it was never any form of hinderance to anything in the area. | |
| John Carothers | 4/6/2013 7:20:12 PM |
| We live just around the corner of the property in question and have no objections to the variance requested. There is no reason that the mandatory 25 foot set-back from the front of this property would be necessary as the orientation of the property is at the end of Upper Skyline and is in such a manner that there will never be a through road created. The said variance would allow the property to be built upon and will help the development of the area. | |