Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />mOM: <br />Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorsc. City Administrator <br />Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE:September 13. 1994 <br />SL^BJECT: #1953 William Allen. 3475 Livingston Avenue - Variance • Continuation of <br />I\iblic Hearing <br />Ust of Exhibits <br />A - Updated Survey <br />B Notice of Planning Commission Action S'19/94 <br />C - Memo and E.xhi’oils 3/4/94 <br />This item was tabled at your Augus" meeting in order that applicant provide an updated survey <br />showing the as-built garage location, and for staff to review building separation and access issues <br />with the Mound Fire Department. <br />The updated survey confirms the location of the existing garage from the side lot line, ami <br />’ from the proposed addition. <br />On the east side of the property, the neighboring residence is 10-12’ distant from applicant’s <br />existing garage. On the west side, the neighboring property contains a carport located <br />appro.ximately” 1’ from the lot line or approximately 7’ from applicant’s house, and in line with <br />the rear of the existing main part of the house. The additions will not create an access situation <br />anv better or worse than currently exists along the lot lines. <br />Steve Erickson of the Mound Fire Department discussed this matter on September 7th with <br />Jeanne Mahusth. He indicated they have no problem with the proposed 4' separation between <br />house and garage, and noted that they would not be hindered in fire fighting efforts by the <br />proposed additions. Further, any fire code separation issues would be resolved simply by <br />creating the proper fire walls (i.e. anpropnately placed sheetrock). <br />It appears that the fire safety and emergency access issues are suitably addressed, and the final <br />determining factor whether to allow the 4’ separation is purely an aesthetic density issue. Does <br />the proposed addition yield a visual density too great for this property, or out of character with <br />the surroundine neighborhood? <br />Options of Action <br />1. Recommend approval of separation setback, hardcover and side setback variances <br />as proposed (note that no lot coverage variance is required due to the 1,500 s.f. <br />allowance). <br />2. Table, requesting additional information or revision, <br />3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br />Ollier.