Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 9, 2002 <br />maintain landscaping in this area. Therefore, the solution was to install a <br />garage door at the back of the attached garage allowing access through the <br />attached garage. <br />Keis pointed out that the new neighbor has a camper parked along this <br />side of the property. <br />Barraclough asked what the Commission would have recommended if at <br />the time of the initial application it knew that it would be very difficult to <br />install a garage door at the back of the attached garage. Knudsen felt that <br />the Commission would have then recommended denial of the CUP. <br />Knudsen pointed out that the neighbor at the time had significant concerns <br />about the proposed access around the garage. <br />Pirkola pointed out that he would only use the access occasionally and that <br />the area would be sodded. Therefore, it will not appear to be a driveway. <br />Keis pointed out that from a planning perspective nothing has changed. <br />The fact that electrical has to be relocated is Pirkola's concern and not the <br />concern of the Planning Commission. Keis reviewed pictures of the <br />property submitted by Pirkola and acknowledged that from the location of <br />the egress window and gas main it appears there is not much room to <br />install a garage door. Knudsen acknowledged that the original solution <br />may no longer be available for a number of reasons. <br />Roycraft reported that he has been checking on this property since the <br />original CUP was approved and has been concerned that there has been no <br />progress made in installing the garage door. Roycraft indicated that he has <br />felt that the City has been taken advantage by Pirkola given that he has not <br />installed the garage door. Roycraft stated that he has not changed his <br />mind from what was originally approved and that he vehemently opposed <br />the amendment to the CUP being requested. Roycraft asked what will <br />happen if the City approves the CUP amendment and six months from <br />now there is no sod in place and Pirkola is driving back and forth to the <br />second garage. Roycraft stated to Pirkola that his history with the City <br />pointed in that direction. <br />The Planner indicated that if the Commission approves the CUP <br />amendment and requires the area be sodded and overuse of the area results <br />in the grass being killed, the City can revisit the permit and impose the <br />original condition that a garage door be installed on the back of the garage. <br />Keis recommended approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit <br />allowing access to a second garage along the north side of the existing <br />house/attached garage located at 2935 Edgerton Street as requested by <br />-4- <br />