My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
1999 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2012 3:33:14 PM
Creation date
2/29/2012 1:35:33 PM
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.
/
988
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
TVlou�ds V�evv Planni�g Coe��issaot� <br />R�gu[ar 1!/�eeti�g <br />� <br />Ja�aeaa�°y 6, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br />Obert asked if he was building this house on the new lot for himsetf and Ericson stated yes. <br />Miller asked if the lot was narrower than the other lots, and if so, was there any speciai reasan <br />why. Ericson re�lied that the remaining property would be 15b feet wide, teaving .�i��rloor open <br />for a future resubdivision. Miller then asked how the propased setback c�xnpar Q�the existing <br />homes on #he black. Ericson replied that most of the houses a,�e set bac� 1[�trt}T<�� forty feet, with <br />the exception of the home on the subject property, wluch o'�`���;lly tot��.'����ss �ro�n Eastwoad <br />Road before Greenwood Drive was constructed. The pr� "`�`�e�ci setback,�c�t t�e-ti�u� l�ome wou <. <br />c� N��� <br />be consistent with the other homes. t�,��' � �' ° <br />_;<�• <br />Peterson inquired aboui e�sting struc�ures, and <br />which Ericson repiied no. <br />Brasaemle stated that while he wi(l support ttus rec <br />because he Iikes the large lots that characterize the <br />the proposed <br />to <br />about the subdivzsion <br />Peterson asked if the praposed home wouid �.�� ���r�c����- �arage anc� vvhzch side of the lot the <br />garage would he. Ericson responded that ��a��om;e �����se� t�t�s; �>.�ude a three-siall garage <br />which would be oriented to the south en�;�f the pr `erty �r�c,s��t"�e�minded the Commission that <br />, � ta . �.�� <br />the footprint shown on the certificat ���,��ot bin��g and is sf�own fbr demonstration purposes <br />i only. _. �� �z ��', <br />� <br />� <br />Brasaemle/�?b <br />subdi <br />Nays - 0 <br />�ion No. 567-99, a resoiution <br />Greenwood Drive, requested by Dan <br />The motion carried. <br />; C�se Alo. ��� �� ����Ii�. �eari�g) <br />involved: 53b4 ;�;li#�an T3rive <br />�tion of Reso ', on No. 568-99, a Resolution Approving a Variance Reyuest to Allow <br />a�e Exceed�. the Maximum Permitted �Ieight by One Foot. <br />property owner. <br />present: <br />Ericson stated that Dan Gates, Yhe applicant, is requesting a variance to permit his undee- <br />construction garage to exceed the maximum height requireenents set by ihe city cade. The city <br />code specifies that any accessory building cannot exce�d a height of 15 feei. The height of an <br />accessory building is noi measured from the floor io the peak, but rather from the floor to a point <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.