Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner VanScoy, seconded by Commissioner Nosan, to approve the following <br />minutes as presented: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 1, 2014. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Levine, Commissioners VanScoy, Nosan, Bauer, <br />Brauer, and Maul. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Field. <br />5. PUBLIC HEARINGS /COMMISSION BUSINESS <br />5.01: Public Hearing: Request for a Variance to the Setback Requirements for a <br />Driveway at the Property Located at 5186 146th Circle NW; Case of Douglas W. <br />Gerick and Catherine McPherson <br />Public Hearing <br />Chairperson Levine called the public hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. <br />Presentation <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report stating the City has received an application for a <br />variance to setback requirements for a driveway to facilitate the construction of a driveway <br />extension to an existing detached garage on the property located at 5186 146 Circle NW. The <br />Subject Property is located within the R -1 Residential (MUSA) District and is subject to <br />standards found in Sec. 117 -111. City Planner Anderson reviewed the request in further detail <br />with the Commission. City Planner Anderson noted that the adjacent neighbor to the north, and <br />closest to where the extension would be, submitted a letter of support for the variance request. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that Staff is recommending approval of the variance request. <br />Citizen Input <br />Kate McPherson, applicant and owner of property, explained they now have to drive on grass to <br />access the detached garage, causing ruts and drainage onto the adjacent property. She explained <br />that during winter months, they would like to store a vehicle in that rear garage. Ms. McPherson <br />stated the majority of square footage would not be on the easement or setback area. However, <br />they need to drive around the corner of the attached garage to access the detached garage. <br />Commissioner Brauer asked whether the use of pavers makes it more acceptable than if it was <br />blacktop. <br />City Planner Anderson stated a paver surface would be easier to remove, if at some point that <br />was necessary. In addition, it would be easier to replace should a repair be required within the <br />easement. He explained the Encroachment Agreement would spell out who would be <br />responsible to remove the encroachment, if necessary, and to replace it after work is completed. <br />With regard to drainage, he explained pavers have additional permeability, which is a favorable <br />Planning Commission /June 5, 2014 <br />Page 2 of 16 <br />