Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COWMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 16, 1986 <br />#1034 R. SCOTT <br />PROCHNOW CONT. <br />Applicant <br />deck off t <br />was asked if he intended to construct another <br />ie 3-season porch. <br />Mr. Proc:hnow indicated that in the future he <br />construct a deck (approximately 12'xl8' ) <br />side of the proposed porch. <br />may want to <br />on the west <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth suggested that he deck be <br />included in the request in order to avoid appi - cant <br />having to come back for another request requiring <br />another fee. <br />Mr. Prochnow agreed with this suggestion. He noted that <br />he did the hardcover calculations which he considered <br />"generous" and felt he could add a deck and stay within <br />the 2 5 % hardcover allowance. He also noted that he had <br />a letter from a neighbor approving his proposal. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by McDonald, <br />to recommend approval of the variance as proposed upon <br />staff recommeridation with the inclusion of a deck not to <br />exceed the allowed 25% hardcover in the 75-250' area and <br />that no additional structure be placed above or beyond <br />proposed deck. Applicant was info-med that the variance <br />was valid for one year only. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br /># 10 3 5 ROBERT X C EMIEN <br />537 HANLON AVENUE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 8:20 - 8:27 <br />The Af f idavit <br />was noted. <br />of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />Bob Koehnen was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron expalined the <br />request for a variance and conditional use permit to <br />construct a 1000 s.f. . detached storage bui 1 ding/garage. <br />He stated that the issue is if this is defined as a <br />"through" lot, then the variances and conditional use <br />permit are Necessary; if it is not a "through" lot, and <br />the lot line at the alley is considered a rear lot line, <br />then the variances are not necessary. He stated that. <br />this right-of-way appears to be the primary access for <br />the house to the south which would indicate it was a <br />street according to the zoning codes definition of <br />"street" and "alley". However, the right-of-way is less <br />than 50' which indicates it is an alley not a street. He <br />noted that i t i s the opi pion of the Ci ty's 1 ega 1 staf f <br />and the City Administrator that this is are alley and <br />should be considered the rear lot l i.ne. <br />