Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/2/93 5 <br /> . <br /> After resolution of the alignment, the recommendation from <br /> the commission will be presented to City Council. Erickson <br /> seconded. <br /> The parties agreed to hold a separate meeting on Monday, <br /> June 7 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall to come to a resolution <br /> regarding the sewer alignment in order to present the <br /> recommendation to Council. <br /> Piotrowski commented that she would like to go ahead and <br /> move to recommend, without staff approval, the alternate <br /> option that was presented (Option 4) because it seemed to be <br /> the best solution for all involved. Option 4 does not <br /> require neighbor approval. <br /> It was decided that Option 4 could not be recommended for <br /> approval at this time without the staff review, particularly <br /> the city consulting engineer and the public works <br /> superintendent. <br /> Original motion approved 6-1. (Winiecki, McGraw, Rye, <br /> Erickson, Carlson voting in favor; Piotrowski opposed.) <br /> CASE #93-08 SIDE YARD VARIANCE POR A GARAGE AT 1419 ARDEN <br /> . PLACE <br /> The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage 5 feet <br /> from a side lot line, where a sideyard setback of 10 feet is <br /> required. <br /> Bergly presented the following considerations: <br /> 1- The variance is requested in order to locate the garage <br /> in a position to do the least damage to 4 large oak <br /> trees. A 36" oak is located 10 feet west of the SW <br /> corner of the proposed garage, and three 14" to 18" oak <br /> trees are located 8' to 16' north of the garage. The <br /> dripline of the trees, presumed to also be the outer <br /> edge of the root system, covers all of the proposed <br /> garage except the extreme SE corner. <br /> 2. There is presently no garage on the property and the <br /> only potential location for a garage is to the rear <br /> (nortli) of the house. <br /> 3. The driveway for the lot under consideration is shared <br /> by the lot to the east with the drive splitting just to <br /> the south of the proposed garage. <br /> 4. In Case #91-15, the owners of both these lots requested <br /> . the City approve a relocation of the common lot line <br /> between the 2 lots. If the lot line had not been <br /> ----- ---- <br />