My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/14/2003 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
05/14/2003 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2014 10:05:01 AM
Creation date
4/16/2014 10:04:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
05/14/2003
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 14, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />intent of the ordinance should not preven t the owners from making practical design <br />choices. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the existing garage wa s 26 feet deep. Ms. Keller replied it was 20 <br />feet, with six feet of entryway. <br />Chair Schaps asked how many feet wide the ga rage would be if they stayed within the <br />ordinance. Ms. Keller replied the original plan they had was a three-car garage with three <br />stalls out in front, but now they decided to do a double-deep garage in back, which would <br />add six additional feet. <br />Chair Schaps asked if they had considered a ny other way to do this. Ms. Keller replied <br />they were making the decision knowing what the possibility of the road was in the future. <br />She stated they would be responsible for ma king this choice. She pointed out there were <br />many homes in the City with a 30-foot setb ack. She noted there were no plans at this <br />time to even expand the road. She indicated if they had the entrance to the garage in the <br />back of their property, they would have to remove trees and the driveway would cut right <br />through their yard. She noted they also had to upgrade their septic system, which would <br />also limit their garage expansion. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if they were only going to have two doors facing the front. Ms. Keller <br />replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he believed they could make their plan work without having to need <br />this variance. Ms. Keller stated 20 feet for a garage was not workable and they were <br />banging their doors on the side of th e garage when they opened them. <br />Mr. Lyden stated he did not believe the ro ad would ever go thr ough and the reason the <br />Zoning Ordinance existed was to protect the publ ic, and in this case the only one affected <br />was the homeowner. He stated he saw no r eason how expanding the garage six feet to <br />the south would impact the public good. <br />Mr. Tralle asked if the ro ad was proposed when they bought the home. Ms. Keller <br />replied she was informed the road might be expanded when they bought the home in <br />1986 and it was on a ten-year plan. <br />Mr. Tralle stated he agreed with Mr. Lyde n and he could not see the road going through <br />any time soon. He noted they could plan thin gs and say they were going to do them, but <br />if it was obvious it was not going to happen, they had to realize that. <br />Mr. Hyden asked if this was at one time a 30-foot setback. Ms. Gretz replied she was <br />able to determine that back to 1992, collec tor streets required a 40-foot setback and <br />before that the Ordinance quote d a 30-foot setback from the st reet, not differentiating if it <br />was a collector street. <br />Mr. Hyden asked what were they suppose to go by. Ms. Gretz rep lied they dealt with <br />what they had now and hoped it was the best way to go.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.