11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF IMF, OIIONO Pl.ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October II, 2014 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M04-3059 James Reader, Coalinaed) as a mutual compromise. Juigcns indicated there were also some issues insolvmg the grading and elevatiuii on this site. Fritzlcr stated in his view this still constitutes an extension of the rooHine and that he is not in favor of the conditional use permit. Rahn commented that he also had the impression that it w as an extension of the rooflinc but that it appears to be an in between method to achieve the design that the applicant is luting for. Rahn suted in his opinion the Planning Commission also has the option of calling this a cupola. Render indicated it was his understanding the Council had directed him to pursue a conditional use permit Bremer moved. Rahn seconded, to recommended AppHcalion M14-3059, 1335 Tonkawa Road.granting of a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the easterly rook peak of the rcsidcace. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 3, Fritalcr, Winkey and Leslie opposed. VVinkey slated in his view it is an extension of the roorunc 9. GARY HANSEN ON BEHALF OF BILL ANIl ROBIN c;R1EKSO.N. 1919 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 8:27 p.m. - 8:47 p.m. Gary Hansen. Hansen Home Tech, and Robin Gricison. Applicant, were picsent. Curtis staled the appli ants arc requesting a 75’-250* hardcover vanance in order to construct a 35’ by 14* addition to the existing home. The lot consists of 21.217 square feet and is located in the I.R-IC district. Cunts stated due to the location on the point, only 4.762 square feel arc located outside of the 75' setback. Curtis stated the proposal is for a comer of the proposed addition to be constructed within the 0*75* setback resulting in 52 square feet of additional haidcover in that zone, and a hardcover vanance within the 75'*2S0' setback for 52 percent hardcover after subtracting all of the plastic-lincd landscape areas. Curtis noted 43 jx*rccni currently exists in the 75’•250* setback zone. Staft' feels that the cuneni plan could be redesigned to meet the 75* setback. Additionally, the sur show s a patio located within the 75’ setback, which could potentially be removed or reduced if li Planning Coiramssion feels that would be appropriate. If the Planning Commission feels that the nature of this property on a point is a significant hardship, there may be some justification for some level of hardcover vanance w ithin the 75'-250' setback. Curtis stated she did a calculation showing the request for the 0-7S’ setback on the west side, which is currently at 7.3 percent. Curtis indicated if the addition is removed and the entire patio is removed PAGE 26