Laserfiche WebLink
chapter and cited the definition of what a garage means. Mr. Mackey inquired about the structure <br />withstanding wind velocity from storms that occur on occasion. Mr. Kollar explained that the <br />structure was able to withstand I Oomph winds. <br />Mr. Rahm moved to approve 23-2999; Ethan Kollar; 5194 Dewey Road item number one <br />carport structure: structure is not allowed per the code: seconded by Mr. Kovach. <br />Board members discussed the issue, acknowledging both sides of the argument and the difficult\ - <br />of reviewing a structure already built. They mentioned support from some neighbors but noted <br />concerns about how new neighbors might perceive it. There was also discussion about the siding <br />matching the house and the structure standing out in the neighborhood. Ultimately they <br />referenced criteria they must consider wand expressed doubts that those criteria had been met. <br />leading to a reluctance to approve the variance. <br />Motion denied: -0 <br />Mr. Rahm moved to approve 213-215999. Ethan Kollar: j 194 Dewe" Road item number two <br />hei�oht of fence: seconded by Mr. Kovach. <br />Board members discussed the issue of neighbors lights and the applicants desire for privacy in <br />their backyard. Thee acknow ledged the complexity of the situation and the importance of tindin-, <br />a solution that respects both parties rights. While some a�areed with the applicants concerns. <br />they questioned whether a nine -foot fence was the appropriate solution. Overall. thev hoped for a <br />resolution through communication and cooperation between the neighbors and suLr1-lested <br />inyolying the building department and safety director to address the issue. <br />Motion denied: >-0 <br />Mr. Rahm excused himself due to a conflict with his schedule and did not participate in the final <br />case. Mr. O'Malley recused himself due to a conflict of interest with the following( case. <br />COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />23-25654; Texas Roadhouse; 5100 Great Northern Mall <br />Representatives: Paula Hubert with Greenberg Farrow and Tim Gates with the Great Northern <br />Mall. <br />Mr. Upton introduced the case. outlining two requested variances: a 46.8 square foot sign <br />variance for the primary facade and a 132.28 square foot variance for the secondary facade sign <br />area. He explained that the code permits a certain square footage, while the applicant requested a <br />larger total area for both facades. <br />Ms. Hubert thanked the board for reviewing the submitted documents and explained that Texas <br />Roadhouse would be located in the established Great Northern Mall commercial space. She <br />emphasized the importance of signs for the restaurants operation and success. highlighting their <br />proportional scaling to the surrounding area. She respectfully requested approval of the signs as <br />submitted and offered to address any questions. <br />