Correspondence 1985-1989 Dahlgren

Home

_, � f Planning Office Hours September 3, 1986 Page 2 � They have other offices in the Metropolitan Area. Research in these offices might also be helpful in determining the real needs for their parking accommodation. � � 3. Kovarik, 484-3412 Lawrence (Bud) Kovarik was in to discuss his desire to retain his thirty foot wide driveway for his residence on Iona Lane between Matilda and Galtier. Mr.. Honchell nated that the maxi.num width is twenty-two feet, and that in the process of redoing the street the curb cut would be reduced to that dimension. We reviewed, with him, possible ways in which tY�e reduction could be made and still provide access to his double garage plus the parking space he has paved contiguous to ha.s garag� on the east sicl.e. He i.s going to look at the suggestions on the site, and see if he can work out a solution. Mr. Honchell noted that they can place the twenty-two fe�t wherever he likes, in a manner so it best serves hi� intere�t. 4. Michaels, 633-1911 Jim Michaels was in to review the possibility of his acquiring prop�rties to the east side of Dale Street, southexly of Transit, where an extension of a cul-de-sac, similar ta that which was done on Transit Avenue, could develop a double row of lots from Dale Street to the school property on the east. He has talked ta the owners, and apparently three owners in �he southeasterly portion o£ the land affec�ed are opposed. Mr. Honchell reviewed with him procedures and regulations regarding a feasibil.ity study to consider the possibility of the City coz�structing the cul-de-sac with or without condem- nation, as may be necessary. We reviewed other �laces in the City where this had been done, and the circumstances th�reto (some of which were done by Michaels). We explored ways in which the disinterested property owners might be left out, though this would prove to be difficult in this case. 5. Pinola, 483-3627 �ohn Pinola lives at 2976 Victoria (east of Victoria, k�etween Millwood and Brenner), and proposes to put a twe].ve foot by twenty-two foot addition on the back of h:i.s existing free- standing garage. The existii�g garage is eight��en inches from his north property line in a five foot setback area. I�e wauld thus require a minar variance to add to th� existing nonconforming structure. Mr. Honchell also suggested that he ap�ly for a two foot set-back �or his existing driveway, which is required normally ta pe five feet from ris north property line. It appears t;�is propos�l is logical. Mr. Pinola notes that his ��ontiguous neighbor to the north does not object. It will �illow him to stare inside some of the equipment that he now s�t.?.�es outside.