Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Lutman stated that she did not feel the mass was that big and she had no concerns <br />with the roof change. She mentioned that the project would be a nice improvement. <br /> <br />The public hearing was closed <br /> <br />Ms. Decker stated that the City likes to see neighbors in support of proposed projects, but <br />that is not always the case and that it is difficult when neighbors have concerns and issues <br />that cannot be resolved. <br /> <br />The Zoning Administrator was able to make the variance findings as stated in the staff <br />report. She stated the proposed addition was compatible with the existing architecture <br />and in fact the pitched roof will enhance the design. <br /> <br />The Zoning Administrator granted approval of the variance, subject to the conditions <br />of approval as shown on Exhibit with the modification of condition #5 related to <br />construction activities providing and allowing the Planning Director to modify those <br />hours of operation to potentially extend or begin the hours of construction earlier than <br />8:00a.m., due to weather conditions and or to restrict those hours ifthere should be <br />complaints from neighbors. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker explained the appeal process and that the decision could be appealed to the <br />Planning Commission within 15 days. <br /> <br />As there was no further business, the Zoning Administrator adjourned the meeting at <br />4:40 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />Steve Otto <br /> <br />Minutes, Zoning Administrator, PV-l 53/PADR-l 536 <br /> <br />June 15, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />