Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 9, 2002 <br />STREET - Edgerton Street. Pirkola pointed out that at the time the CUP was <br />BRETT PIRKOLA approved, he agreed to access the second garage by installing a garage <br />door on the back of his attached garage allowing him to drive through that <br />garage to access the second one in the back. Pirkola explained that he had <br />planned to install an 8-foot garage door and there are a number of factors <br />that are making this difficult. The electrical service for the house and <br />garage run through the back wall of the garage and there is an egress <br />window in the back that is positioned so that he would only have 7 feet 6 <br />inches of space within which to install a garage door. Pirkola reported that <br />when he applied for the CUP, his neighbor to the north opposed his access <br />to the second garage by driving around his house. However, that neighbor <br />has since moved and the new neighbor has no opposition to the access he <br />is requesting. <br />Keis pointed out that neighbors change and the next neighbor may have a <br />problem with access to the second garage by driving around the north side <br />of the house. <br />Pirkola pointed out that his need to access the second garage is only <br />occasional and that he will not blacktop a driveway to the garage. <br />Roycraft pointed out that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time <br />reviewing this CUP and noted that Pirkola felt, at the time, the conditions <br />placed on the CUP were reasonable. Roycraft noted that the only change <br />in the situation is that there is a new neighbor to the north. Roycraft felt <br />there was no reason to change the previous approval. <br />Pirkola again pointed out the difficulties he is facing with having to <br />relocate the electrical, with the location of the egress window, and with <br />grade changes at the back of the garage. <br />Roycraft pointed out that Pirkola agreed that the conditions of the CUP <br />were fair acid reasonable and is now asking that those conditions be <br />changed. Pirkola stated that he is requesting the change given the major <br />unforeseen problems he has encountered. Roycraft asked if additional <br />expense is a~i unforeseen problem. Pirkola stated that he did not build the <br />house and attached garage, therefore he did not know the location of the <br />electrical in the back of the garage. Weihe noted that Pirkola did know the <br />location of the egress window. <br />Barraclough asked about the previous issue with the property to the north. <br />The Planner pointed out that Pirkola has a 10-foot setback from his <br />attached garage to the property line. The previous property owner was <br />concerned that accessing the second garage by driving through this 10-foot <br />area would result in an unsightly situation and it would be difficult to <br />3- <br />