Laserfiche WebLink
. :. ;.. ..-. . . i .. . _ .: - <br />, ':, ,:. , .. .... _:... i .. ; . _. ... .. <br />Mou�ecls �T��w Pianr�i�g Co�raer�issimn <br />�egul�r I�ieetflng <br />granting of the variance request. <br />A��it 7, 1999 <br />P�ge 4 <br />Chair Peterson stated he is glad to see th�se types af improvements being made to the dwellings. <br />Mi°. Non-is stated they hope others will follow suit and im rove their ro ert . `� <br />P P l� Y �n`� <br />I�iller stated she viewed the property and understands how t' could b�; ���,�za�i� iznprovement. <br />However, the Planning Commission is charged with having °' .ternur�� ���,����,,the criteria <br />exists to grant a variance. , <br />��t, <br />�' �: , <br />Commissioner �tevenson stated this reminds him of a pre���r�y or�;��i�erwood Ra�d't���:�� �:�° <br />� F� <br />garage wa� constructed. He agreed the Planning Corrur����rt�tx z� �harged with upl�blr�i� ��e Code <br />unless the seven criteria are met. He stated he reads into �t1� t,�t��;�a that it would be allowed and, <br />in his judgement, he believes the criteria have been met sc� �i� ���11 ���}��ri the variance request. <br />Commissioner' Hegland stated whenever you <br />exceptional and extraordinary due to the exi; <br />he believes that coilsideratiion is applicable ht <br />improvement. Hegland stated his support� <br />Chair Peterson asked for an indicati <br />approval or der�ial. ,� <br />Commission�z� Johnson <br />property. <br />Commissi <br />ports <br />should <br />isiit��; ���c,�r�y ��,t makes it <br />,,�. <br />�,yo�z nee� �� �aark within, He stated <br />oj�t will r�s�zlt in a definite <br />ed to prepare a resolution of <br />it will result in an improvement to the <br />Chair Petersan,��,���;��t��:�� also b�����s it is importan^t �o assure the seven criteria ace met and <br />he believe � �lus casc, ���y �te �nei �� stated he beiieves some leniency is appropriate wh�n <br />�y.. <br />the con ?� �"ration is w►tla �r� ��yt�z�g development rather than a new daveloprrzent. He stated he <br />belie this projec� wtli ����3� ta benefit wiihaut hanmfut effects to the neighborhood. <br />sioner Laube s- � d he is wiling to vote for approval but questions whether the shed will <br />�ed. Mi-. IVo ..�advised that the shed was recently moved to the renter's side of the <br />Co��ts��ta��� ��aden stated h� believes the b�nef ts of tlzis project will outweigh the concerns so <br />he witl vote fo�- approval. <br />� =1 <br />Chair Peterson explained �hat if the strict criteria are nat foilowed, it resuits in establishing a <br />precedent that coutd be �ited during future considerations. �� expiained th�t with ga�rage size <br />variances, several Code chae�ges have been enade as well so the Plar�eiing Commission has to ;,.';'; <br />consider whether this is a rouiine situation or a uruque situation. <br />_ -. , <br />