My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-03-23
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2011
>
2011-03-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2011 8:31:08 AM
Creation date
8/30/2011 8:31:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Nancy Georgen, 7298 Greenway Avenue, spoke about the proposal. Ms. Georgen stated that she <br />believed in property owners’ rights. However, she is still concerned with safety. Ms. Georgen <br />mentioned that this neighborhood lacks sidewalks yet many people walk so safety is a concern if <br />another house is added. She also stated that she is concerned with the trees on the lot. <br />Jason Hassenstab, 7274 Creveling Avenue (house to east of proposed new lot) spoke about the <br />proposal. Mr. Hassenstab stated he is concerned with the property line and the amount of room <br />between the proposed house and the property lines. <br />Ms. Riganti asked the applicants if they would like to respond. <br />Mr. Wurm – The size of the proposed new lot is larger than many of the surrounding lots. Many <br />of the existing houses are close together. They are not proposing anything different than what <br />already exists in the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Manlin stated that the home he would propose on this lot would fit with the existing <br />neighborhood. It would include brick, stone, and stucco. <br />Question from Plan Commission and applicant response: <br />Architecturally would the home be different from the surrounding houses? Mr. Manlin – No. As <br />stated before, lot 11 is larger than many of the surrounding lots. <br />The Chairperson asked for the staff report. <br />Staff presented the staff report. <br />Mr. Manlin stated he had a copy of a letter from the subdivision trustees. <br />Mr. Wurm stated that the existing structures will be removed as shown on the updated plat. <br />Questions/comments from Plan Commission and responses included: <br />-Are the existing structures functional? Mr. Manlin: No. <br />-Where is the large tree located? Applicants showed Plan Commission members on the <br />plat. <br />-Are you planning on avoiding the trees? Mr. Manlin: The driveway can come up the <br />property one of two ways. Mr. Wurm: There is enough space between the trees to design <br />a driveway that goes around them. <br />-In the middle of the lot, is it all grass? Mr. Wurm: Yes. <br />-What about easements at the rear of the property. What is the size of the easements? Mr. <br />Wurm: When the subdivision was created, five foot easements were shown along the rear <br />property lines. <br />-The County website showed easement specific to Lot 11. Mr. Wurm stated he had a copy <br />of the subdivision plat and was familiar with the County website. He did not recall <br />seeing any easements specific to Lot 11. <br />tm; <br />E <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.