My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
1998 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2018 10:25:19 AM
Creation date
2/22/2012 8:14:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
882
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Bellamy CUP Request <br />2185 Pinewood Drive <br />August 19, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br />Dimensional Requirements: <br />Required Provided Met/Not Met <br />Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Met <br />(Side) 5 feet 13 feet Met <br />(Rear) 5 feet 38 feet Met <br />Percent of Rear Yard* < 25% 15% Met <br />Garage Width 5 35 feet 22 feet Met <br />Area of all Accessory Buildings: 5 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,008 Sq. ft. Met <br />Analysis: <br />At past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional <br />relationship requirement between a house and garage has been discussed. Those discussions led <br />to the adopting of Ordinance 620, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request. <br />While the proposed garage is significantly larger than the house (1,008 sf for the garage compared <br />to only 682 for the house), under either set of guidelines, a CUP would be required. The rear <br />yard is large enough to meet the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The question remains, <br />however, "is the proposed garage too large for he site and the home ?" To balance this concern, <br />the advantages of such a garage, such as creating adequate storage space for the resident's <br />vehicles and yard appliances, need to be considered. Because of privacy fencing used by the <br />applicant and the adjoining neighbor, the full effect of the garage would be shielded from either <br />street view. As presented, the proposal meets all of the criteria imposed by the Code, as <br />addressed in the dimensional requirements above. Staff feels, in this instance, that the benefits of <br />such a garage may outweigh any disadvantages. <br />The driveway to the current garage is about 80 feet long and unpaved. The applicant has shown <br />on the "proposed" site plan to be improving the driveway with concrete. If this CUP request is <br />recommended for approval, one requirement shall be that the driveway be improved with a <br />permanent surface within three months of taking out the building permit for the garage. An <br />additional requirement imposed by approving this CUP would be to further screen the proposed <br />garage by means of erecting a privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and <br />the property line to the west. <br />Adverse Effects <br />Of the criteria listed in Section 1125.01, Sub. 3 for granting conditional use permits, the proposal <br />appears to satisfy the requirements with the possible exception of two: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.