Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />OCTOBER 8, 1992 <br />setback. <br />Burnham reported that the property was divided about <br />four years ago. At the time the property division took <br />place, the City Council noted that the lot was <br />substandard, and said it would approve a variance so <br />that the lot could be built on in the future. <br />Hunting reported that at the time of the property <br />division, the City recognized that there may be a <br />problem with this lot in the future. However, there <br />was no guarantee of variance approval, but there was <br />the indication that the City would recognize the <br />situation in the future. <br />Bill Suchy, resident of the area, questioned the width <br />of the Krienke property. Suchy reported that the <br />property owner to the east has a 75 foot lot, and <br />believes that there is a misunderstanding about where <br />the common property line lies. <br />Garske asked if the Krienke property had been surveyed. <br />Burnham replied that it had not, and the issue about <br />the property stake was news to him. <br />Suchy reported that he believed the Krienke lot to be <br />only 68 feet wide. Suchy reported that there are <br />property stakes for both sides of the lot to the east <br />of the Krienke lot. <br />Evelyn Kukk, owner of the property to the east, asked <br />if the intention was to use part of her property. <br />Burnham replied that this was not their intention. <br />Burnham reported that only the Krienke property is <br />involved, and the request is for a sideyard setback <br />variance from Rosewood Drive on the west. Burnham <br />reported that the property can be surveyed and the <br />placement of the house adjusted so that it does not <br />interfere with the adjacent lot to the east. However, <br />this would influence the size of the variance. <br />Drabik pointed out that Rosewood Drive is narrow, and <br />with the addition of the new house as proposed, there <br />would be three driveways coming together in a very <br />small area <br />Ron Melchoir, 79 Rosewood Drive, stated that this is a <br />concern of the property owners already living on the <br />cul -de -sac. Melchoir was concerned that the applicant <br />is requesting a variance so that he could cut in half <br />the required setback on a corner lot. Melchoir <br />Page 9 <br />Page 11 <br />