|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DCPREZ-2015-10908
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
1 Rezones
>
2010s
>
2015
>
DCPREZ-2015-10908
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2016 9:29:32 AM
Creation date
1/7/2016 9:28:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Rezone/CUP
Rezone/CUP - Type
Rezone
Petition Number
10908
Town
Bristol Township
Section Numbers
18
AccelaLink
DCPREZ-2015-10908
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
Schutte, Kristine <br /> From: Schutte, Kristine <br /> Sent: Tuesday,April 05, 2005 4:42 PM <br /> To: Steinhauer, Charles <br /> Cc: Conrad, Peter;Webster, Karen <br /> Subject: Request for more information for Pet. 9244 file that you took in, please <br /> Charlie-- <br /> On 3/16/05,you accepted Pet.9244 from County Board Supervisor Duane Gau without asking for a legal description for <br /> the proposed R-3A parcel. (Note that the preliminary CSM in the file includes a description of the entire 2-lot CSM, but no <br /> description for proposed Lot 2,the proposed R-3A parcel.) My review of the file on 03/24/2005 noted this--I placed a note <br /> on the file asking you to have Gau provide the required legal or ask Pete if the existing CSM lot(Lot 2,CSM 10712)could <br /> be used as the legal for Pet.9244. Today Karen W. told me there is still no legal description in the file,so I asked Pete at <br /> our regular Tuesday morning meeting whether the existing CSM Is an appropriate legal description for the rezoning <br /> petition. Pete told me that we do need the metes and bounds description for the proposed R-3A parcel,as usual. <br /> My review of the file and my note to you on 03/24/2005 also noted that there is a detached garage and a shed on <br /> proposed Lot 2. Rezoning to a Residential district cannot result in a non-conforming building, so it's important to know if <br /> the existing residential accessory buildings meet the size and height restrictions of the Residential districts --see Sections <br /> 10.04(1)(b)2.and 10.071(3)(b). Part of your review of the application at the counter should include identifying any possible <br /> inconsistencies with the proposed zoning district. In this case, It's necessary to compare the floor area of the house and <br /> garage and ask for a detail drawing showing the height. I was able to use the application materials to determine that the <br /> size of the garage and shed do not exceed half the floor area of the house. However,there is no height detail for the <br /> garage and shed in the rezone file. <br /> Please follow up in the following manner to obtain the required information: <br /> Notify Gau in writing that the Pet. 9244 file requires 1)a metes and bounds description for proposed Lot 2, the proposed R- <br /> 3A parcel and 2)elevation drawings for the existing detached garage and shed on proposed Lot 2, showing the peak <br /> height and eave height for each. Send a copy of your letter to Burse Surveying. Include a copy of your letter in the Pet. <br /> 9244 file and return the file to me, please. You may also wish to call Gau to give him a'heads up'that the letter is coming. <br /> Thanks for following up to obtain the required information, Charlie. Take care, Kris <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.