Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 12, 2012 <br />request for a garage. She indicated that there are other options, however. <br />Norma Klidzejs stated that they opposed the sharing of their driveway and <br />the south access. She felt replacing the garage in its present location was a <br />better option. <br />Duray stated that the property is unique. He felt there were other options <br />that could be considered, such as replacing the garage in its present <br />location. Duray felt it would be problematic to eliminate the existing <br />driveway on the north. He indicated that he could not support the <br />Variances requested. <br />Fischer noted that the Planning Commission typically looks for a win /win <br />situation, but felt that there wasn't one in this case. He noted that the <br />Klidzejs have taken great care in maintaining their driveway. He also <br />noted that the Mercil's have the right to construct a new garage on their <br />property. He also noted that building the new garage on the north could <br />impact the site lines to the lake. Fischer stated that there did not appear to <br />be a win for everyone in any of the potential solutions. Fischer also stated <br />that he was struggling to see how the Mercil's and Klidzejs' would be able <br />to work out a maintenance agreement on a share driveway. Fischer stated <br />that given the uniqueness of the property he could support the Variance <br />requests, but only if a maintenance agreement can be worked out. <br />Murphy agreed with these comments. She indicated that the City <br />Planner's recommendations seem reasonable. Murphy also pointed out <br />that retaining the driveway to the north will require a Conditional Use <br />Permit. She indicated that the Mercil's will have to decide whether they <br />want to pursue this CUP. If the Variances are approved, they will also <br />have to work with the Klidzejs on a maintenance agreement. <br />Hall stated that he did not feel the requirements for a Variance were met. <br />Hall also commented that given the Klidzejs' position he did not see how <br />a maintenance agreement could be worked out. Hall pointed out that there <br />are other options that the Mercil's could explore. <br />The City Planner stated that it is important to note that the neighbors do <br />not have veto ability in the variance requests. One option would be for the <br />City to construct a public street rather than allow the continuation of the <br />private driveway. The Planner stated that if the Variances are approved, <br />however, it would be in everyone's best interests to work out a <br />maintenance agreement rather than construct a public street. <br />Murphy recommended approval of the Variance to allow construction of a <br />detached garage in a front yard and a Variance from front yard setback <br />requirements requested by Tim Mercil for property located at 3246 Twin <br />Lake Road based on the findings of fact outlined in the City Planner's <br />-8- <br />