Laserfiche WebLink
<br />General discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked that if plan 3 did not proceed after being approved, it should be at Mr. Wieden's expense to <br />change the driveway. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Klausing moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend the granting of the variance to allow the <br />construction of an attached double stall garage on the Eldridge Avenue side of the property at 2125 Dale Street subject to <br />the following conditions: <br />1. The west side of the garage be screened to minimize the visual impact of the garage to the property to the west, <br />and if the applicant chooses to pursue plan 2, the variance for plan 3 is then void. <br /> <br />The planning commission recommends the granting of the variance based upon the following findings: <br />1. The unique physical features of the property (i.e., the slope of the land running toward Dale Street, the traffic levels <br />on Dale Street, and the pathway crossing the applicant's property) create a physical hardship; <br />2. The hardship is not the applicant's creation; and, <br />3. If granted, the variance will not impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community. <br /> <br />Member Mulder noted that other alternatives could be done without a variance. The findings are stretched. The variance <br />is too intrusive to the Code. <br /> <br />Member Olson agreed with Member Mulder. The pathway does not make this driveway non-conforming. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham agreed with Member Mulder's reasoning. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Wilke moved, Member Egli seconded, to table consideration of Planning File 3211, request by Kenneth <br />Wieden for Variance, to the June 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Ayes: 3, Wilke, Egli, Klausing <br /> <br />Nays: 4, Cunningham, Rhody, Olson, Mulder <br /> <br />Motion defeated 3-4. <br /> <br />Vote on original motion to recommend granting of the requested variance, based on findings and conditions outlined. <br /> <br />Ayes: 3, Wilke, Egli, Klausing <br /> <br />Nays: 4, Cunningham, Rhody, Olson, Mulder <br /> <br />Motion defeated 3-4. <br /> <br />The report to the Council, on May 22nd, is that the Planning Commission did not approve a recommendation. The motion <br />failed 3 (ayes) to 4 (nays). <br /> <br />Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2000: <br /> <br />Gf. Planning File 3208: A request by CSM Corporation to amend the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development <br />Agreement (No.2880) for a modification allowing a third hotel within the PUD limits. The parcel is located south of the <br />existing Veritas Software structure. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Dennis Welsch to provide a verbal summary of the request as <br />described in the staff report dated May 10, 2000. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch provided background and explained building, parking and traffic issues. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing asked for details for the amendment process. <br /> <br />Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies, explained the projects completed to date in the Centre Pointe Business Park. He <br />explained the Veritas growth plan for the site and Veritas' request for additional hotel space to house their trainees and <br />business clients. <br />