My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1980-05-07 PC Minutes
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
1980-05-07 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2009 4:12:16 PM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:23:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
I,: . <br />. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING <br />Page 4 May 7, 1980 <br />.. ---°----°°.___•--------------°----°--~--------------°--------^ ---------------° <br />~iscussion: <br />..,- <br />~G_i~m ,e~l-His proposed 54' setback on his <br />AzfsFfng structure would be the same <br />amount of setback as his neighbor. <br />His ~h_a~rds~hi statement is that he needs <br />the ~di~na space a new garage woald <br />afford and tE wouid 6e difficult to <br />build the exlsting garage into the <br />house inorder to match the roof lines. <br />~ <br />Officiai Rose-Indicated it would Ee <br />feasible ~' add to the present house <br />and restructure the roof 11nes. Rose <br />reminded Mr. Gimpel tha1: the Commission <br />had io addrnss ihe minimum <_etbacl; <br />requirements and not che aesthetic <br />quality of the proposed structure. <br />Haake-No comnent. <br />Skiba-Fee1s it would,be acceptab1e. <br />Burmeister-Reminded Comnission and the audience <br />~iat-~ie cost of the proposa] to the oWner <br />could not tie~a consideration in the seCback <br />requirement even though it was a valid personal <br />concern. 5he also noted that since tM s <br />structurE is on a car~ier, it would be less <br />than is required on a corner structure. <br />McCartfi -Agrees it can be attached to the <br />presen ouse. <br />hbuntln-•Sees no hardship ather than a problem <br />o g a3ing or architectural aesthetics. Feels <br />that a 30' setback should be closely adhered to <br />as possible. <br />Fedor-Recal]ed no time when a variance was <br />setbackd to anyone to bUild closer then a 30' <br />Burmeister made a mation to deny the request from Donald R. <br />G1mpel (7500 Knollwood Orive) for a front yard variance <br />of 7.3 feet by attacMnc~ ibe ~arage to the existing struc- <br />ture. Ne could come within the code and he has not shown <br />a hardship as to why he can not atCach that garage and <br />tcme Nithin the code ~f the 30' setback requirement, <br />Haake second~d it. <br />~ Ayes-5 <br />Nays-0 <br />pbstain - Skiba (No comnent) <br />The motion was carried. <br />, „ , <br /> <br />, . <br /> 1 <br />MOTION CARRIES. <br />i <br />t <br />~ <br />9 <br />i <br />r, <br />, <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.