Laserfiche WebLink
l�ot�nds Viedv Plat��ing Comgnxssi�aa .Tanua�°y G, 1999 <br />I�e�ular� I1/![eeting Page 3 <br />Oberi asiced if the applicant was buiiding this house on the new lot for himself and Ericson stated <br />that he was. <br />Miller asked if the lot was narrower than the other lots, and if so, was there any special reason <br />why. Erzcson replied that the remaining property would be 156 feet wide, leaving the door open <br />for a futuxe resubdivision. Miller then asked how the proposed setback compares io the existing <br />homes on the block. Ericson replied thai most of the houses are set bacic thirty to forty feet, with <br />the exception of the home on the subject property, which originaliy toolc access �rom Eastwood <br />Road befare Greenwood Drc�ve was canstructed. The proposed setbacic for ihe new home would <br />be consistent with fihe other homes. <br />Peterson irzquired ahout existi��g structures, and wk�ether any cross the proposed property lines, to <br />which Ericsan replied no. <br />Brasaemle stated thaf while he will support this request, he has reservations about the subdivision <br />because he lilces the large lots that characterize the city. <br />Peterson asked if the �roposed home would have a three-car garage and which side of the lot the <br />garage would be. Ericson responded that the home proposed does include a three-stall garage <br />which would be oriented io the south end of the property. Ericson reminded the Commission <br />-'? that the footprint shown on. the certificate is not binding and is shown for demonstration purposes <br />only. <br />Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Obert to approve Resolution No. 567-99, a resolution <br />recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 8444 Greenwood Drzve, requesfied by Dan <br />Danielson, with stipulations. <br />Ayes a 6 Nays a 0 The motion carried. <br />b. <br />Planni�g Case l�io. 539-9� (P�ablie I�earin�) <br />Property involved: 5364 Cliftan Drive <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 56�-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow <br />for a Garage Exceeding the Maximum Permitted Height by One Foot. <br />Applicanfi: Daniel Gates, property awner. <br />The applicant was present: <br />Ericson stated that Dan Gates, the applicani, is requesting a variance to permzt his underm <br />constructio� garage to exceed the maximum h�ight requirements set by the city code. The city <br />code speci�es that any accessory building cannot exceed a l�eight of I5 feet. The height of an <br />