Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OP THE PLMmillG COHMISSIOH , I .4 TING HELD MkR!^ 16, 1987 <br />• I«1119 MacMlLLMI CX>HTIM1 <br />As requested by Mr. Hasek, the Planning Cowmission <br />stated that the following are their main concerns: <br />1. The main house is not a principal residence of <br />any family member. <br />2. Size of stricture, future use, screening & <br />aesthetics. <br />3. How to regulate use. <br />4. Access to proposed structure should be from the <br />existing residences' driveway. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to table <br />this application in order for the applicant and staff to <br />address the issues of concern; and until the legal <br />issues are resolved. Motion, Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />#1120 RICHARD W. RAGATS <br />1945 COHCOROIA STREET <br />VARIAECES <br />PUBLIC HEARIRG 10:44 - 11:05 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />was noted. <br />Mr. Ragatz was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />proposal to remove an existing 14'x 16' shed near the <br />road and replace it with a 22'x24' garage. This would <br />provide the opportunity to locate the garage to meet the <br />10' side and 10' street setbacks, however applicant is <br />requesting a variance to keep the garage 2' from the lot <br />line and 2' from the street, a slightly better setback <br />situation than the existing but not meeting the code <br />standards. Applicant’s stated hardship is the slope of <br />the lot, however staff does not feel this hardship is <br />valid. He noted that if the garage is moved to the 10' <br />street setback line, a standard driveway will bring <br />applicant's 75-250' hardcover over the 25% limit to <br />approximately 27%. <br />Mr. Ragatz noted a hardcover discrepancy which included <br />the deck and disagreed that the deck should be <br />considered hardcover because when it was approved to be <br />built it was not considered hardcover. He noted that <br />the hardcover amount is critical because he plans a <br />future addition. <br />Chairman Kelley agreed with applicant's stance on the <br />deck not being considered hardcover in this particular <br />case.