Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING H ELO MARCH 16, 1967 <br />#1119 MacMILLAN CONTINUED <br />As requested by Mr. Hasek, the Planning Commission <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 structure, future use, screening b <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 ,natter <br />Ind the public rearing was closed. <br />I;- 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. RAGATZ <br />1945 CONCORDIA STREET <br />VARIANCES <br />PUBLIC HEARING 10:44 - 11:05 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />was noted. <br />Mr. Ragatz was present fur ttis 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 />1.0' 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 he 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 1.ine, 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. fie noted that <br />the hardcover amount is critical because he plans a <br />f ut urs addition. <br />Chairman Kelley agreed with applicant's stance on the <br />deck not [,einq considered hardcover in this particular <br />case. <br />12 <br />