Laserfiche WebLink
ivm OF HIE oaONO rLANMNC ccHEtD ON MAY 14^ I9M K t K’SION HNG(#4) 1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN,4fl4TONIUV1EW LANE-VAMANCES- CONTINUATION Of PUBLIC HEARING ^CONTINUED) <br />A suitable buildiiqi envelope. <br />(#S) #1912 TIM HILLMAN, 4M LEAF STREET • VARIANCES • REFERRED BACK <br />TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADMTIONAL REVIEW <br />Mnbwth reviewed tbe staff report and tbe options avaiUMe to tbe Planning Conunissioo. <br />Tin Hilbnan was present aiMl staled that to reduce tbe anount of lot coverage be <br />proposed to remove tbe smallest sbed and reduce tbe area of tbe npper deck from 6' x <br />25* to 6' X 14*. He believed tbai this would be adequate to meet the ordinance <br />requirements. <br />Chair Scbroeder inquired if tbe applicaat was wilUng to redesign tbe entryway and <br />Hillmaa responded that be would consider it. Nolan stated that because of tbe easement <br />tbe setback variances were substantially intensiSed which concerned him. He felt that if <br />tbe piMM were redes^ned to meet tbe side year setback be would be much more inclined <br />to support it. Cbmmisi ione rs Rowlette, Berg, and Lindquist concurred. Rowlette stated <br />she was concemed about tbe potential for further development in the area and tbe <br />driveway being tbe only means of access for those properties and becoming a roadway in <br />tbe future. <br />Chair Scbroeder commented be felt that the entryway on tbe south side needed to be <br />reduced or relocated so that it was at least 30 ’ fr^ tbe lot line. <br />Lindqubt moved to recommend approval of #1912 for Tim Hillmaa with tbe <br />understanding that the exbtir^ small shed and portkNis of tbe upper deck would be <br />removed to bring lot coverage into compliance with ordinance standards and the south <br />side yard setback requirements because tbe easement may someday serve added <br />residential development. <br />Chair Scbroeder stated he was reluctant to approve the request as submitted, and other <br />CoHunbsionets appeared to feel that way also. He felt that if the applicant wbhed to <br />resubmit plans that conform to directives of the Commission that the Planning <br />Commission could take action at a future meeting. He felt that the best action was to <br />table the request to allow the applicant to explore possible revisions to tbe plans. <br />It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to table #1912 Variances for Tim <br />Hillman at 400 Leaf Street, to allow the applicant to redesign the proposal. Ayes 6. nays <br />0. <br />ZIT'-