Laserfiche WebLink
F" ;. ^ •••:■^%-:. •:.:y\ <br />1 Avenue ** <br />nnlng Conunlssion to Review <br />re a front/street aetback <br />rd yard is proposed. <br />/17/89 <br />minority opinion at your <br />options for the expansion <br />, the amended addition now <br />itructure. The former mud <br />I season porch with a 6* <br />m expansion. There is no <br />). The 6* addition to the <br />let setback variance. The <br />bandard street setback of <br />variance approval covers <br />floor expansion is to be <br />:e variance approval. <br />;u:. ■■ <br />‘ y <br />1 <br />■:mmm <br />' : p-' > . :.i>: a; yffisiSteasKys <br />A-,thiiirrtfejei-.T^ ii iWt•ft:':'.---■.A.-■ v^\.;.. trd!>! •■ •,.•• : . ■.■■ ■■:'-^ '•':;.';A ■•:;'' ■MINCTES OP rap PLASHING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989zonss FILS «1334-UBBIIS COBT;entirely, if that issue could be addressed in the final homeowner document. Kelley asked whether the Planning Commission would see the homeowner document? Mabusth replied that the Planning Commission would see the subdivider's agreement and the covenants. Kelley rescinded his portion of the motlcn pertaining to* <br />accessory structures. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes-6, Johnson, <br />Nay due to his preference not to restrict the subdivision any <br />further by Increasing the sideyard setbacks; Motion passed. <br />«135f DAVID LISDSnOH <br />1315 NDODHIIX AVBNDS <br />HBASIB6 8s05 P.M. - 8:20 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />The applicants were present for this matter, as was Mr. <br />Steve Sather, the applicants' developer. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Planning <br />Commission that an amended site plan had been submitted showing <br />the proposed deck location to be on the east side of the <br />property. The street setback, originally thought to be required, <br />will not be necessary. The only variance required will pertain <br />to the separation setback required between the garage and porch <br />addition. <br />Chairman Kelley's opinion was that the garage should be <br />attached to the addition. Mr. Sather explained that could not be <br />done due to the garage having a floating foundation. It would <br />also limit the sise and purpose of adding the porch. The <br />applicants are trying to have an open room and minimise looking <br />out the back wall of tne house into the garage and maintain a <br />porch-like atmosphere. <br />Planning Commissionar Brown asked whether the addition could <br />be located on another side of the house? Mabusth explained that <br />there was steep topography and the septic system that limited <br />expansion to the east. The location of the well on the west side <br />would prevent expansion in that direction. <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows asked why the mud room and <br />porch could not be Interchanged? Jane Delaney explained that <br />such an arrangement would not fit in wi'*h the present layout of <br />thi house. Mr. Sather gave a brief explaxiation of the floor plan <br />of the existing house. Bellows believed that there were other <br />alternatives to this proposal. <br />Planning Conrissioner Johnson concurred with the applicants <br />regarding the limited area in which the porch could be built. <br />Brown concurred with Johnson. <br />Kelley stated that one of the hardships would be the garage <br />located on a floating slab. Mabusth explained that such a <br />I' <br />w'Mb <br />■X-M <br />mmm <br />MW:'ri!-:xm-x <br />V * <br />'. ' r • I <br />'■fxx'x <br />HI; <br />1 <br />: - r- ..-‘.Xt <br />1^, <br />■. ./Vi:-;.:.. ■ <br />-jk <br />m <br />tf: i <br />r-a- ■■ ■; a' <br />- V - 'i-X^m <br />m:m <br />'W' <br />'ky-VVa.-': <br />■a <br />£.XXX:XmxfiMx.X <br />\ , / t., , if' :