My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
07-26-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2014 9:41:50 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 9:39:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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 />JULY 13, 1995 <br />requiring a CUP is to ensure that the additional <br />accessory building space is not being used for a <br />business, and make sure that the garage is in scale <br />with the size of the house. The Planner stated that <br />the all accessory building or garage space is <br />considered, whether attached or detached.. <br />Schletty pointed out that the Wilson home has no <br />basement, therefore, additional garage space is needed <br />for storage purposes. <br />It was noted that the City Planner's report dated July <br />10, 1995 recommends approval of the CUP request. <br />Mr. Garske recommended approval of the Conditional Use <br />Permit to allow a garage addition which would result in <br />total accessory building area exceeding 1,000 square <br />feet as requested by David and June Wilson, 636 Keller <br />Parkway. <br />Motion seconded by Carson. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />ZONING The City Planner presented the proposed Zoning Code <br />CODE amendment relating to Conditional Use Permit <br />AMENDMENT standards. The Planner reported that the amendment <br />RELATIVE expands the standards by which CUP requests are - <br />TO CUP'S judged as well as puts the burden of showing compliance <br />with these standards on the applicant. The Planner <br />pointed out that one of the additional standards <br />provides for architectural consideration of CUP <br />applications. <br />Schletty asked if this proposed amendment is a response <br />to a recent request to move a house into an existing <br />residential neighborhood. <br />The Planner replied that it was. The Planner stated <br />that there are a number of ways to approach such <br />requests, one of which might be to adopt an infill <br />building ordinance. When Council reviewed that option, <br />they felt it was too burdensome from an administrative <br />standpoint. <br />Garske asked the difference between proportion and <br />scale. <br />2 <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.