pf_03211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I Ken Wieden, 2175 N. Dale, explained the history of the project. The 2 Eldridge difference will add $12,000 to the cost (from $9,000 to $21,000). 3 He is supportive of plan #2 because of cost. 4 5 Member Mulder asked if a variance is needed for plan 2 (no). 6 7 Member Cunningham asked why grading of the site and current 8 driveway floor was not considered. What is slope of drive on Eldridge 9 (11h% to 2%). If plan 3 was built, would entry be through the existing 10 house. The existing garage would not be converted to living space. II 12 Public comment included: 13 14 Elso Hohnquest, 637 W. Eldridge, asked how /why the city will not 15 support the south side project, with the difference in cost to be applied to 16 Eldridge. (The city is willing to work with applicant.) 17 18 Chair Klausing closed the hearing. 19 20 Mr. Wieden stated he was not withdrawing the variance request. The 21 difficulty is the cost at this time. 22 23 Member Wilke said that the existing driveway must be addressed in any 24 variance (especially plan 3). 25 26 Thomas Paschke explained the six-month variance time requirement to 27 begin construction. Mr. Wieden will have to commit to one or other plan 28 by July when the trail paving begins. 29 30 Member Olson asked about the drive crossing the path. Deb Bloom stated 31 that there is visibility to the public right-of-way, more concerned about 32 road right-of-way. 33 34 Chair Klausing stated he is prepared to recommend a variance because of 35 the hardship. 36 37 Member Mulder asked if plan 1 was to be considered, what would be 38 needed beside setback variance (side-yard). He did not like plan 2 or 39 plan 3. He objected to the aesthetics/look of the project. 40 41 Member Egli asked if plan 2 is expanded for a driveway, is a variance 42 needed (no). 43