pm_000712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Klausing noted that an ambiguity in the ordinance points to the minimum distance at the property line must be six feet; it is not clear that this must exist in all areas. Chair Klausing asked about drainage and if it affected the east side. Member Mulder asked if a condition of the variance was to remove the existing driveway and curb cut(yes) and indicated that it appears the existing driveway is non-conforming with two curb cuts (1997 Pavement Management Plan). Member Mulder questioned the safety of the configuration with the gas utility on the side of the house, and also indicated there were three accessory buildings on the site (two allowed - the three considered pre-existing condition). Chair Klausing requested the staff to report on required dimensional site plan and/or survey (either would do). Member Egli asked how far the house was from the property line (not listed). Kate Wolf-Jenson indicated they were not living in the house and found out about the meeting on the 12th of July; the west property line is 12 feet from next house; impervious surface was included on the handout given to the Planning Commission; a survey was done. Ms Jenson further indicated that they would use the detached garage as it is not possible to operate a lift in the attached garage and further that the paved surface was needed to access the garage with the scooter. Chair Klausing asked when the house was purchased (December). The Planning Commission discussed how to determine hardship. Ms. Jenson indicated the paperwork stated physical hardship is handicap accessibility to the van; the applicant did not create the hardship; there is a need for indoor storage of the van. Member Cunningham indicated he could see accessibility as a hardship Member Olsen questioned the width of the driveway. The Commission received a letter of concern for the variance proposal from Maher Albahrani and Faryal Khamis, 211 McCarron Street. There being no further comment, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Egli, to continue the variance hearing until August 9, 2000, to allow the Jensons time to prepare a more detailed and measured site plan or survey that will clearly indicate the dimensions of the site and the proposed driveway and staff is to review other options to be placed on the site. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion passes. Gc. Planning File 323G: Request by Robert Reichenbach and Gail Anderson for a Variance from the required lot coverage of a residential lot (30%) and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached accessory building greater than the allowable (40%) rear yard area on property located at 1858 Hamline Avenue. Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated July 12, 2000. Thomas Paschke explained the need for the variance (11 % of lot coverage) and the Conditional Use Permit (5% building coverage of rear yard). The existing garage is 2.5 feet into the adjoining lot the south. He explained the use of the site and illustrated pictures of the site. Staff recommended that the CUP proposal met the requirements of Section 1013.01.0. Staff recommended approval of both requests with findings and conditions. Member Cunningham asked for size of the garage within rear yard requirements (435 s.f.). Member Olson asked for detail of existing driveway at the back.