pm_000712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Assistant City Engineer, explained the reasoning for the vacation. No additional public comments were received. Chair Klausing closed the public hearing. Motion: Member Cunningham moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend approval of the request for vacation of a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement (legal description attached) lying between Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Partridge Industrial Park, 2965 Partridge Road, based on the findings outlined in Section 3.1 - 3.4 of the project report Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Gb. Planning File 3228: Request by Ralph Jenson for a Variance to construct a driveway within the required five-foot yard setback on property located at 201 McCarron Street. Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to provide a verbal overview of the project report dated July 12, 2000. Dennis Welsch explained the conditions of the site. Mr. Jensen is requesting a four-foot variance for the driveway setback, placing the driveway one foot from the property line, to provide access to a pre-existing two-car garage in the rear yard of the property. Dennis Welsch presented pictures and the staff findings, as well as a letter from neighboring property owners. The City would require a survey to verify the site location. Staff recommends approval of the variance provided the applicant can provide additional information as requested. Member Olson asked why 8' vs. 10' driveway and how will the snow pile be placed to reduce piling near the home? She also asked if the gas line and meter are in jeopardy on a slippery day? Member Mulder expressed concern about the possible collision with the meters. Member Egli asked about the placement of the turn-around (in front of garage on "Y" apron) and whether either of the small accessory buildings will be removed (no). She also asked if placement of the modified van in the garage was a hardship? Member Cunningham asked for contents of the accessory buildings (basically empty). The hearing was closed after no public comment offered. Member Wilke asked if notification had been given to the property owner (yes). He asked if the fence along the west property line could be replaced or reset on the property to the west (the fence was established by the adjoining property owner). Member Wilke supported the request if property owners to west accept and the meter adjacent to the driveway is protected. Member Mulder explained the concerns he has for the property and the site, and the rational for a variance. He suggested tabling the request for more information. Member Cunningham asked for details of the east side walkway. Why was the deck not rearranged to the west to allow the driveway on the east. Mrs. Kate-Wolf Jenson explained that the east side is the wheelchair access to the house. Mrs. Jenson said it could be placed on the east side but a driveway will still need a variance. A sidewalk will be needed from the east side to the street. Thomas Paschke explained the decking creates a problem on the east. A variance would be necessary on either side. Member Mulder stated that both adjoining properties have bedrooms on the side toward the Jenson property. Member Cunningham asked if the driveway needed pavement (yes).