Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />NOVEMBER 12, 1992 <br />Garske felt that the house fit the character of the <br />neighborhood, and suggested to the neighbors that the <br />house proposed would fit the neighborhood better than a <br />very small house. <br />Mr. Pazderski stated that his concern was having another <br />driveway dump out into the circle. <br />Keis pointed out that Rosewood Drive is a dead -end street <br />and there is not a lot of traffic on that street. <br />Mr. Pazderski pointed out that the neighborhood children <br />play in the cul -de -sac. The corner is blind, and there <br />have been children almost hit. <br />Garske asked the effect on the neighborhood if the house <br />were faced west. <br />Pedersen felt that from an aesthetics standpoint the <br />house would look better facing north. <br />Mr. Pazderski pointed out that lot width does not meet <br />minimums for a corner lot. <br />DeLonais agreed, and pointed out that theoretically no <br />house could be built on the lot. <br />The Planner pointed out that the Council realized that <br />the lot would not meet minimum width standards when the <br />area was platted. <br />Garske felt that if the variance is approved, the street <br />should be posted with "Caution- Children" signs. <br />Mr. Pazderski suggested turning the house to face west. <br />Carson pointed out that this would infringe more on the <br />site line since the larger part of the house would be to <br />the north. <br />Mr. Carson recommended approval of a 14 foot side yard <br />setback variance at 90 Rosewood Drive as requested by Dr. <br />George Krienke subject to compliance with the <br />recommendations of the City Planner as outlined in his <br />report dated November 9, 1992. <br />Motion seconded by Garske. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />Page 3 <br />