Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 24, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RErOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF <br />THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A METAL SKIN STRUCTURE BY MR. & MRS. <br />LEO GLUNZ BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: <br /> <br />1. WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. <br /> <br />2. WILL IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT <br />OF THE SURROUNDING VACANT PROPERTY. <br /> <br />3. WILL NOT COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S CODE <br />OF ORDINANCES. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER NADEAU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schroeder and Eberley voted no. <br /> <br />7. Jim Amble Variance Request from Side Yard and River Setbacks to <br />Allow Accessory Structure/Public Hearin~ <br /> <br />Steve Bj ark, . Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicant is <br />requesting a side yard variance and a setback variance from the river <br />in the R-la zone to accommodate a detached garage. <br /> <br />Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or <br />against the matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />The applicants were present to explain their request indicating that <br />to comply with the setbacks their garage would be in the front yard. <br />At this time, the applicants gave the reasons they felt they met the <br />standards for a variance request. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF <br />THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 24 ft. by 24 ft. ACCESSORY BUILDING AS <br />LOCATED ON THE DRAWING SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS BASED UPON THE <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT: <br /> <br />1. THE SPRINKLE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED PRESENTING A <br />HARDSHIP. <br /> <br />2. A NUMBER OF TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED CREATING A HARDSHIP. <br /> <br />3. A NUMBER OF LANDSCAPING CHANGES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE CREATING <br />A HARDSHI P . <br /> <br />4. THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HAMPER THE VIEW FROM THE NEIGHBOR OR <br />THE RIVER (NOT INJURIOUS TO 0THERS. <br /> <br />5. THAT THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD. <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />SETBACK RULES WERE IMPOSED AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT (NOT <br />CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR ACTION OR INACTION). <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. <br />