Laserfiche WebLink
NXMCTBS OF THE PLAlOilliG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 <br />ZONING PILE #1465-MCCOORTHBY CONTINUED <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the house was nicely <br />done, but the issue is hardcover. She said that the Planning <br />Commission had been through this with Mr. McCourtney before. She <br />said that it would be difficult to approve a 101 increase in <br />hardcover, especially due to the fact that the lot is small. <br />Chairman Kelley said that he would be inclined to recommend <br />that hardcover remain at 3.51 and 36.8% as required as PJ»^t of <br />the approval for Mr. McCourtney's 1988 application. Kelley <br />questioned whether it would be possible for the applicant to <br />obtain adjacent property? <br />Mr. Wenkus replied that acquiring adjacent land was a <br />possibility but he could not answer that question at this time. <br />Mr. Wenkus reiterated that there was a definxte hardship and that <br />the square footages were appropriate. He said that ir tne <br />Planning Commission recommends maintaining hardcover - .ne <br />current percentage, he could not even put in a reasonable <br />driveway, not to mention the patios and sidewalks. He said c.iat <br />the maximum allowed width of the driveway would be 16 , not <br />adequate to serve a triple width garage. <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows asked Gaffron how this plan <br />differed from what was approved sc that only that much driveway <br />would be permitted. <br />Gaffron replied that the addition of sidewalks was a factor <br />as is the fact that the terrace is a bit larger than the pre­ <br />existing deck. Gaffron said that the applicant in the previous <br />application had "traded away" hardcover that he should not <br />rea nably have traded away". <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by <br />Planning Commissioner Hanson, to deny the hardcover variance and <br />that the current hardcover percentages 3.5% and 3®*®' <br />remain. Motion, Ayes-3, Brown, Nay due to his concern for safety <br />with the cars being parked along Ferndale. Motion passed. <br />The portion of this application pertaining to the fence was <br />then discussed. <br />Gaffron asked the applicant if he would «till require the <br />fence, in light of the denial for the circular driveway? <br />Mr. Wenkus said that they would still like the fence as <br />proposed as it is more aesthetic than anything else. <br />Bellows asked where the fence would be located now chat <br />there is no circular driveway? <br />Mr. Wenkus replied that it would be approximately In the