My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1998/07/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
Agenda Packets - 1998/07/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:01 PM
Creation date
6/18/2018 6:41:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/14/1998
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/14/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
Bellamy CUP Request <br /> 2185 Pinewood Drive <br /> September 14, 1998 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Dimensional Requirements: <br /> Required Provided Met/Not Met <br /> Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Met <br /> (Side) 5 feet 13 feet Met <br /> (Rear) 5 feet 38 feet Met <br /> Percent of Rear Yard <25% 15% Met <br /> Garage Width 35 feet 22 feet Met <br /> Area of all Accessory Buildings: _< 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,008 Sq. ft. Met <br /> Analysis: <br /> At past City Council meetings, the issue of revising the City Code to establish a proportional <br /> relationship requirement between a house and garage has been discussed. Those discussions led <br /> to the adopting of Ordinance 620, which amended various sections of the City Code pertaining to <br /> garages and driveways. Using either set of guidelines, a conditional use permit would be <br /> required,.because the proposed garage is significantly larger than the house (1,008 sf for the <br /> garage compared to only 682 for the house). The rear yard is large enough to meet the new 20% <br /> rear yard coverage limitation. The question remains, however, "is the proposed garage too large <br /> for the site and the home?" To balance this concern, the advantages of such a garage, such as <br /> creating adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances, need to be <br /> considered. Because of privacy fencing used by the applicant and the adjoining neighbor, the full <br /> effect of the garage would be shielded from either street view. As presented, the proposal meets <br /> all of the criteria imposed by the Code, as addressed in the dimensional requirements above. Staff <br /> feels, in this instance, that the benefits of such a garage may outweigh any disadvantages. <br /> The driveway to the current garage is about 80 feet long and unpaved. The applicant has shown <br /> on the "proposed" site plan that the driveway will be improved with concrete. If this CUP request <br /> is approved, a recommended condition would be that the driveway be improved with a permanent <br /> surface within three months of taking out the building permit for the garage. An additional <br /> recommended condition would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecting a <br /> privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line to the west. <br /> Adverse Effects <br /> Of the criteria listed in Section 1125.01, Sub. 3 for granting conditional use permits, the proposal <br /> appears to satisfy the requirements with the possible exception of two: <br /> (2) "The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from <br /> adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value..." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.