Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Wietecki opened the hearing and requested City Planner Kim Lee <br />provide a summary of the written report dated November 12, 1997. <br />A letter was received from adjoining property owner to the south (James <br />Brisbrois, November 11, 1997) who requested that the Planning Commission <br />table action until the property line issue is resolved by the title companies. <br />Kim Lee reported that the driveway and house addition have been in place since <br />1967 and a variance could be justified to replace the existing driveway to within <br />one foot of the property line. <br />Chairman Keith Wietecki asked for details regarding the property line dispute. <br />He asked if there were improvements that would be damaged by the existing <br />driveway or a home addition (K. Lee noted no harm would occur). <br />Member Ed Cunningham asked when the adjoining property to south was built <br />and/or purchased and whether there was prior knowledge of this case. <br />Phil Lacher, 2912 Mildred, noted he bought property in 1991 and was assured <br />by the title company that no variance was necessary. Sunde Surveying did a <br />survey in June 1997 to ascertain the house and property line location. <br />Member Cunningham noted the survey stakes on photos and asked for <br />clarification regarding the property line and the lot corner. Member Cunningham <br />asked for details of the cost of an alternative to remove the adjoining hill and <br />construct a retaining wall instead of a variance. <br />James Brisbrois and Mike Fritz presented information and requested definition of <br />“burdensome” variance and requested the Planning Commission table the matter <br />until the title companies can resolve the issue. <br />No further public comment was offered. Chairman Wietecki closed the hearing. <br />Motion: <br /> Member Cunningham moved that the Planning Commission defer the <br />decision until the title companies resolve the case. Motion later withdrawn. <br />Chairman Wietecki noted there is little reason to return this case to the Planning <br />Commission because where the property line actually ends up is not of issue; he <br />would recommend that a variance be issued so that the driveway moves no <br />further south, and no closer than one foot to the property line. <br />Member Thein asked for clarification regarding a variance for non-conforming <br />use. <br />2 <br />