HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-03 staff report response1
Ratzlaff, Hannah K.
From:Linda Pollock <kriley13@verizon.net>
Sent:Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:35 PM
To:Ratzlaff, Hannah K.
Subject:Commission report comments
Sent from my iPhone Linda
Hi Hannah
I have read the report and have a few comments. I understand the requirements.
1.To clarify the large wooden door on the west wall has not funcƟoned as a sliding door interest. It was the intent as
there is an overhead rail, however has not ever been funcƟonal. My intent for showing it on the new construcƟon was to
reuse the door secƟon on the west wall but not make it funcƟonal. The idea was a future use or owner could make it be
an opening. I do not want the added expense of making this be a working sliding door. If it has to just be a wall that’s fine
with me.
2. Roof elevaƟon. My explanaƟon may have been poorly worded as my proposal was to make the two roof elevaƟons
become one elevaƟon which would be lower than the barn roof. The preference was to use the taller of the exisƟng
south end shed which replicates the current profile and connecƟon to the fence.
3. I understand the required overhang may not meet regulaƟons and a set back may be required. Since this is not an
alley the public would be using can it be designated so as not to have to do the setback?
4. RecommendaƟon on roof material is no problem other than might cost more.
5. RecommendaƟon on smooth siding is no problem. However the LP siding product, upon further research, may not be
the choice for a durable product. I originally researched metal siding in a board and baƩon style but did not think that
would get approval. Other choices to be researched would be wood and hardie board, I believe.
I am without a laptop and may be relying on my phone for email for a few days.