07-25-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 2001 The neighbor to the south of the Pirkola property appeared before the Commission. He indicated his support of the CUP and noted that the lot is very deep. He felt the lot was large enough to accommodate the garage. Roycraft questioned the convenience of accessing the new garage through the existing garage. Roycraft stated that it looks as though Pirkola would be circumventing the idea of going through the garage. Keis pointed out that the Commission can make the question of access a condition of approval requiring access through the existing garage. Keis also noted that Mr. Pirkola's letter indicates that he would be storing hobby cars in the garage. Given this storage use, it is unlikely that Pirkola would be using the access through the existing garage to the new garage on a daily basis. Knudsen expressed concern about the basketball court area becoming a storage area. The City Planner indicated that the Commission can impose a condition that there be no outdoor storage on the basketball court and that all storage must be inside. Knudsen asked what basis the City has for denying a CUP of this type. The City Planner reported that denials could be based on the scale of the building in relation to the lot and surrounding area or else a negative impact that the building would have on surrounding properties. Another reason would be the scale of the building in relationship to the house. Roycraft felt that Pirkola should have determined the need for this storage space before the house was built. Roycraft stated that he had concerns with the access. The Planner indicated that the Commission can restrict access to the new garage through the existing garage. If the property owner drives around the outside of the existing garage to the backyard, this becomes an enforcement issue for the City and would be a violation of the CUP. The Planner suggested that another option would be to require the planting of trees or construction of a fence that would prevent the property owner from driving around the existing house and garage to access the back yard. Barraclough noted that the property owner to the north has planted ash trees along the adjoining property line to delineate this line. Barraclough suggested that a tree or two could be added on the Pirkola property should would block access to the back yard. Keis expressed concern with this option pointing out that if the property owner ever needed to get a backhoe or some other piece of equipment into the back yard to build a pool, etc. the access would be permanently blocked. PAGE 24