Laserfiche WebLink
, _ _. ._ <br />. <br />_ _ E . � . . _ _ . . . . � . . � . - .. . ... . - .. . ' . - <br />Maunds View Planning Co <br />mmission September 5, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />3. Citezens Requests and Comments on Items Not an the Agenda <br />There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda <br />£ '4 <br />4. Planning Case No. VROl-009 `��' �. <br />Planner Atkinsan addressed the Commission and explamed`t�ie"circumstances surrounding fhe <br />request for the variance. He noted that Staff feels it is important to mai�ntain Yhe 10-foot sideyard <br />setback from the existing house due to the location of the l�ouse ori the lo�� �;�lanner Atkinson <br />also explained that Mr. Zinser has joined Mr. Gustafson ui'developmg tfie property and noted he <br />was in attendance to answer any questions the Commission may have `� <br />Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7 03 p:m„ , <br />Mr. Zinsar told the Commission the only change to previously sulimitted plans was the request <br />for the variance for the 94-foot frontage;.on County Road I. `_ �"'' <br />Commissioner Miller questioned where fhe garage on Lot 3.:would be located. <br />Mr. Zinser:indicated he had :planned to locat� <br />Long Lake �oad adjacent'to� Courity Road I. <br />of the:Commissi <br />• ,':s : <br />reference the <br />�ards the street and it would face <br />t;_, <br />he would comply with any request <br />e`rni�g the;location of th�e garage. <br />�ti_ <br />noted he fe�t �he �esolution should refer to Lot 3 for clarification and <br />ir the loca"�ion bf�#he�house on Lot 4. <br />���:�.,.� � ��' <br />� � -,- �-��,�.: <br />� r�re�°�s to the purpose of the 100-foot frontage requireinent. <br />� �. <br />�� �' � <br />; � ; � � �;a: <br />Planner Atkinson indicated �h�i on corner lots it is better to have the larger frontage due to the <br />t�?Va front yards and the 3�'-foot setback requirement. <br />Commissioner Mille�;questioned how the Commission could grant a variance when the property <br />has; not been officially subdivided. <br />{ <br />si <br />� Pianner Atkinson�indicated that the variance would aliow the subdivision to proceed. <br />Commissioner Miller indicated she was still concerned about granting a variance. <br />Community Development Director Ericson suggested adding a stipulation to the Resolution <br />requiring that the variance be subject to the application and approval of a major subdivision for <br />the property. <br />