Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br /> <br />Extract of Draft Minutes from Plannine Commission Meetine of Julv 12.2000: <br /> <br />6c. Plannin2: File 3236: Request by Robert Reichenbach and Gail Anderson <br />for a Variance from the required lot coverage of a residential lot (30%) <br />and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached accessory building <br />greater than the allowable (40%) rear yard area on property located at <br />1858 Hamline Avenue. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Thomas Paschke to <br />provide a verbal summary ofthe project report dated July 12,2000. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the need for the variance (II % of lot <br />coverage) and the Conditional Use Permit (5% building coverage of rear <br />yard). The existing garage is 2.5 feet into the adjoining lot the south. He <br />explained the use of the site and illustrated pictures of the site. Staff <br />recommended that the CUP proposal met the requirements of Section <br />lOB.01.D. Staff recommended approval of both requests with findings <br />and conditions. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked for size of the garage within rear yard <br />requirements (435 s.f.). <br /> <br />Member Olson asked for detail of existing driveway at the back. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked for detail regarding existing driveway (pre-existing <br />use). <br /> <br />Member Egli asked for details from neighbors (none) and requirements for <br />garages. She asked if pavers are impervious (yes), were they included in <br />the calculations. <br /> <br />Member Rhody asked why no garage in front yard (cannot be placed there <br />by Code). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked ifthe request could be divided into two issues. He <br />asked if the CUP met the Comprehensive Plan (yes). Is there consistency <br />in the "use"? (yes). <br /> <br />Member Rhody requested detail of the Conditional Use Permit building <br />coverage. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted setbacks in the "after" proposal was three feet <br />and why a setback permit would be needed as in 4.10 of the staff report. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if the setback would be three feet or five feet (three <br />feet if the setback permit is approved). <br />