pm_000510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Klausing asked what mechanism is possible to enforce the conditions of the variance (removal of driveway). Deb Bloom explained the work with Mr. Wieden to date. Member Mulder stated that one condition of the variance should be removal of drive and curb cut. Member Olson asked if the turnaround could be placed closer to the house. Deb Bloom reported on the design and need for radious and slope of drive. Member Wilke asked if Plan 2 improved the slope (16% would not meet Code). He supported Plan 3 as the safest alternative. Member Egli asked if there are safety concerns with "sight triangle" on alternative 3 (no sight problem). What will happen to the existing garage on Dale Street? (Applicant undecided). Member Rhody asked if there was off-street parking on Eldridge. Ken Wieden, 2175 N. Dale, explained the history of the project. The Eldridge difference will add $12,000 to the cost (from $9,000 to $21,000). He is supportive of plan #2 because of cost. Member Mulder asked if a variance is needed for plan 2 (no). Member Cunningham asked why grading of the site and current driveway floor was not considered. What is slope of drive on Eldridge (1 %% to 2%). If plan 3 was built, would entry be through the existing house. The existing garage would not be converted to living space. Public comment included: Elso Hohnquest, 637 W. Eldridge, asked how/why the city will not support the south side project, with the difference in cost to be applied to Eldridge. (The city is willing to work with applicant.) Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Mr. Wieden stated he was not withdrawing the variance request. The difficulty is the cost at this time. Member Wilke said that the existing driveway must be addressed in any variance (especially plan 3). Thomas Paschke explained the six-month variance time requirement to begin construction. Mr. Wieden will have to commit to one or other plan by July when the trail paving begins. Member Olson asked about the drive crossing the path. Deb Bloom stated that there is visibility to the public right-of-way, more concerned about road right-of-way. Chair Klausing stated he is prepared to recommend a variance because of the hardship. Member Mulder asked if plan 1 was to be considered, what would be needed beside setback variance (side-yard). He did not like plan 2 or plan 3. He objected to the aesthetics/look of the project. Member Egli asked if plan 2 is expanded for a driveway, is a variance needed (no). Member Wilke asked if a variance expires in six months if no action is taken by the owner.(yes) Chair Klausing felt the back yard tree could be moved; the plan 3 garage creates a buffer to the neighborhood - he would support it. Member Cunningham supported plan 3 or plan 1. Member Egli supported plan 3, but did not want existing driveway to remain. Member Rhody stated he felt that the applicant should withdraw.