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
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />September 16, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br />Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. <br />Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." <br />Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent yt, on execu`,,%N. And recordation of <br />the easement document. <br />MOTION /SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Reso <br />Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Par <br />Businesses and a Zero -Foot Parking Lot Setback, <br />Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. <br />VOTE: <br />Ayes - 6 <br />6e <br />Planning Case No. 535 -98 <br />Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Roa;' <br />Consideration of Resolution No 5588a Resohition apprO frig a Variance to Allow for two <br />Curb Cuts. <br />Michael Tobias <br />n <br />n <br />h1tway 10, <br />4. <br />The apple hiot present. <br />Associate Enos€ i <br />The applicant was requesttn variance from the Code requirement that states a single- family <br />ro pert F >, <br />P shall be [invited d ;0ne curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building <br />perm to resurface his dr i ew y, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood <br />Road; At that time staff indicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the <br />nonconforming nature o the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The <br />nt agreed andst e permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that <br />access points remained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant <br />tot €,.: thing that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: <br />1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road <br />2. Apply for and receive a variance <br />The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present <br />condition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.