My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-03-26
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
1986
>
1986-03-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2005 4:18:49 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:03:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
Document type
Minutes
Planning - Date
3/26/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes - Plan Commission <br />Page 2 <br />March 26, 1986 <br /> <br />Plan Commission on February 26, 1986. Ms. Elwood stated that the previous request <br />by the E. W. Ellerman Company involved subdivision of the property at 7901 Lafon <br />Place. Chairman Hamilton stated that the present request seemed straight forward <br />and the survey seemed accurate; but he was concerned about the steep grade of the <br />lot on which the new home would be built. Mr. Ellerman noted that a <br />topographical survey had not yet been completed, but he had consulted his <br />architect with reference to the particular topography of lot No.2. He stated <br />that the house that would be built on this lot would be designed specifically for <br />the site and that he did not plan to build a house from stock plans. The <br />architect had also noted that the grade of the lot would not be raised by fill <br />material. Mr. Blozan stated that it would be too costly to fill. Both gentlemen <br />noted that the existing house to the west of the empty lot was built on fill, <br />retained by a stone wall facing the lot. They noted that this wall would not be <br />removed for the purposes of building the new home and stated that only a small <br />amount of fill might be needed for construction of the driveway. Chairman <br />Hamilton asked about potential drainage problems with the steep slope of the lot. <br />He asked Ms. Elwood if this would be reviewed by staff as part of the building <br />permit application. She stated that that would be the case; the plans would be <br />reviewed by the Deputy Building Commissioner. Mr. Ellerman noted that the new <br />lot would be 60' wide as it faced Lafon Place which fulfilled the minimum <br />building frontage requirements under Section 34-30.3a of the Zoning Code. Mr. <br />Ellerman noted that Mr. Blozan's house would remain on lot No. 1 at the corner of <br />Lafon Place and Warder Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Rice made a motion that the request to subdivide the property at 7801 Lafon <br />Place be recommended for approval to the City Council as submitted. Mr. <br />Washington seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0. <br /> <br />PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 34-90 "DEFINITIONS" <br /> <br />Ms. Elwood stated that with the enactment of the "PD"-Planned Development <br />District regulations, new Section 34-39 of the Zoning Code, planning staff <br />realized that the code might better define the height of a building which is <br />regulated in the Planned Development District regulations, Section 34-39.7e. <br />Chairman Hamilton felt that the proposed definition for the height of the <br />building was ambiguous. Mr. Rice stated that he felt the current definition of <br />the Zoning Code for building height measured the height of a building in an <br />adequate manner. Chairman Hamilton noted that measuring height from "ground <br />level" is a concern. It is debatable whether one measures from curb grade or not <br />especially if the building is set back 15' or more. He asked if the proper <br />height of a building could be determined before a building was constructed. <br />Chairman Hamilton also asked if roof top antennae should be counted in building <br />height. In response to Commission members various questions about the definition <br />of building height, Ms. Elwood suggested that Commission members reserve their <br />questions until Mr. Goldman was present at the next meeting. Mr. McCauley <br />suggested that the Commission layover discussion of this item so that they might <br />hear Mr. Goldman's comments on the proposed definition. <br /> <br />RECEIPT BY COMMISSION MEMBERS OF A PARTIAL DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br /> <br />After noting receipt by Commission members of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, <br />Chairman Hamilton noted that there were a few issues which the Commission would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.