Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE #1334-RBBBRS CONTINUED <br />the answer to that question and advised Mr. Wear to call the <br />Mayor. Mr. Wear stated that it was time the City determined that <br />issue. <br />There were no further comments from the public regarding <br />this matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning <br />Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of #1334, <br />subject to items #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as set forth in staff's <br />recommend_,tions and conditions, and to the additional items as <br />follows: <br />1. That the access to the subdivision be moved to the crest <br />of the hill on Brown Road. <br />2. The building pad will be defined by the 50' front and <br />rear setbacks and 3C' side setbacks. 80% of the building pad can <br />be hardcover. The 80% hardcover figure includes the driveway <br />which will be outside the building pad. Within the 30' and 50' <br />setbacks, there will be a limit placed on the removal of trees <br />with diameter of 2" or greater, with the exception of the <br />driveway area, where any size tree may be removed. <br />3. The Planning Commission did not recommend a fence for <br />the north side of the property because of the precedent that <br />would be set with other subdivision reviews. <br />Motion, Ayes=7, Nays=O, Motion passed. <br />NOTE: At this point of the meeting Planning Commission members <br />Bellows and Cohen departed. <br />#1344 ROGER RODER <br />1099 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />The applicant was not present and this matter was tabled for <br />a future date. <br />#1345 JOHN THBOBALD <br />4017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 11:20 P.M. - 11:30 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />The applicant was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />explained that the applicant is now proposing to attach a new 30' <br />x 32' garage to the existing 16' x 22' garage. This would make <br />