PL PACKET 05151990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' 4 Planning Commission meeting April 17 , 1990 Page 2 1 The Chairperson explained the procedure to be followed for such hearings 2 to the 20 or so persons present. 3 4 Staff Report 5 6 7 Ms. VanderHeyden restated some of the concerns staff had regarding 8 the variance which had been presented in her April 10th memorandum 9 in the agenda packet . These included potential safety problems with 10 a driveway only 15 feet long as well as concerns that the private 11 service sewer lines into the units which are now buried in the slope . 12 in the terrain in front of the projects might not be adequately covered 13 when the garage units are constructed over them. She also mentioned 14 the possibility of liability for the City should the City snow plows 15 hit one of the cars parked in the driveway during the winter. 16 The Assistant to the City Manager also reported finding no 17 precedent for allowing a similar variance in the City other 18 than for non-conforming front yard structures which were grandfathered • 19 in with the 1973 ordinance or allowed after the 1984 tornado. 20 She said the only instance she could find was for a garage 21 in front of the Hance home on Silver Lake for which the Council 22 had found .a hardship resulting from the stringent requirements 23 imposed on lakeshore property by the DNR. 24 Mr. Burt indicated the City ' s utility lines in the public right of 25 way would not be impacted by the proposed construction . 26 27 The public hearing was opened at 7 :43 P. M 28 29 Barbara Zielinska, the only spokesperson for the variance, reported 30 her family was now driving four vehicles and needed more than a single 31 garage for their three bedroom bungalow. She indicated a double garage 32 would allow them to hide two of the vehicles from view and would leave 33 only two vehicles on the driveway rather than the three which will have 34 to be parked there during the winter when the City ' s parking restriction 35 are in force. The applicant also pointed out that three vehicles parked 36 on her driveway posed a greater obstruction to the view of neighbors 37 exiting onto that busy street. 38 39 Mrs . Zielinska_.reported the applicants had a contractor friend as 40 well as an uncle who is an architect who would help them with the projec 41 and assure a nice appearance for the garage exteriors . The existing 42 garages would be sealed off and perhaps utilized as living space later 43 on she told Commissioner Franzese. However, the need for more garage 44 space for the four vehicles was the prime consideration right now. • 45 The applicant also told the Commissioner she had discussed the project 46 with her neighbors and they had indicated .no objection based on their 47 knowledge of the "good care her family already gave their property. " 48 49 There was no one else present to speak to the issue and the public 50 hearing was closed at 7:49 P. M. for Commission consideration.