2000_0522_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 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. General discussion ensued. Member Cunningham asked that if plan 3 did not proceed after being approved, it should be at Mr. Wieden's expense to change the driveway. Motion: Member Klausing moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend the granting of the variance to allow the construction of an attached double stall garage on the Eldridge Avenue side of the property at 2125 Dale Street subject to the following conditions: 1) The west side of the garage be screened to minimize the visual impact of the garage to the property to the west, and if the applicant chooses to pursue plan 2, the variance for plan 3 is then void. The planning commission recommends the granting of the variance based upon the following findings: 1) The unique physical features of the property (i.e., the slope of the land running toward Dale Street, the traffic levels on Dale Street, and the pathway crossing the applicant's property) create a physical hardship; 2) The hardship is not the applicant's creation; and, 3) If granted, the variance will not impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Member Mulder noted that other alternatives could be done without a variance. The findings are stretch�d. The variance is too intrusive to the Code. Member Olson agreed with Member Mulder. The pathway does not make this driveway non-conforming.