My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-14-00 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
09-14-00 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2008 2:35:16 PM
Creation date
8/6/2008 2:30:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 <br />Mr. Montour recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for <br />Country Side Terrace as requested by Mr. Dick Biagini subject to <br />compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. <br />Motion seconded by Carson. <br />Motion carried 7 - 0. <br />VARIANCES - Mr. Dennis O'Connel, Suburban Auto, appeared before the Planning <br />2989 COUNTRY Commission requesting approval of a Variance from the side yard setback <br />DRIVE - requirement of fifteen (IS) feet so that he may put an addition onto his <br />SUBURBAN building which is five (5) feet from the lot line. O'Connel also requested <br />AUTO a Variance from the materials requirements of the I-P District. This <br />Variance would involve the expansion of a metal building as well as <br />allowing the building to be surfaced in stucco. The Code limits the use of <br />stucco in the I-P District to 25% of the building exterior. <br />The City Planner pointed out that the I-P District allows for aone-time <br />expansion of a metal building. He noted that Mr. O'Connel used that one- <br />time expansion in 1994 when he added on to his building. The Planner <br />noted that in order to grant a Variance, there must be a physical hardship <br />present which limits the use of the property. The Planner felt it was <br />difficult to find justification to grant a Variance from the building <br />materials requirements even though the proposed addition would match <br />the existing building. <br />Knudsen asked the rationale for the one-time exclusion. The Planner <br />replied that when the Code was changed putting into place the materials <br />limitations, the City recognized the need for some building expansion. <br />Therefore, it allowed aone-time expansion for the metal buildings in the I- <br />PDistrict. The Planner noted that an expansion of the Suburban Auto <br />building can be allowed; however, the building materials used for the <br />expansion must meet Code requirements. The Planner acknowledged that <br />aesthetically the expansion might look odd given the use of different <br />building materials. However, the Code does not take aesthetics into <br />consideration. <br />Keis asked about the five (5) foot setback for the existing building. The <br />Planner indicated that the setback for the existing building is <br />grandfathered in. The Planner noted that to require the building addition <br />to meet the fifteen (15) foot setback requirement would cause the addition <br />to close off an existing door. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.