1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 4 C. Update on Overton Foyer Expansion at 2824 Woodale Drive Ericson told the Commission that the Overtons had not presented architec the City when they applied for their variance. The applicants ha presentation through their architect and this presentation was t Commission used in making their decision to grant anc the home is taking place, the roof lines that had b • escribed character with the existing home, were not fittin with th house or the neighborhood. plans to ral ion that the t the addition to er and in stir Obert expressed concern that the City's developm didn't stipulate that an addition must fit in with t the existing house. Ericson quoted from Section 1125 of t be material detrimental to the purpos ments for this type of project hborhood or blend in with Variance e variance would not ther • o erty in the same zone." Brasaemle suggested that the P1.° ng Co architectural drawings on vat n appli Ericson quoted from Co deve . • ments and e ut. d stree gle- All pr nsofe e viously gs are p ed must be reviewed by the City." This ental review necessary for the type of project that the he Code to require me before the Commission. al, commercial, and residential s, except developments where public ed and the erection of no more than two ing a` code requirement that ties existing conditions to the t. d verbiage a follows: "Any expansion of an existing facility that has to go through a development review." d: "Politically and historically the City is stuck with letting people do ey want to do, appearancewise." Ericson suggested getting the Council's feedback on the issue. Have them make a judgement as to whether or not the Code language is acceptable or if it needs to be amended to try to solve this type of problem. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports