07-25-2012 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There may be unique conditions in this case, however, in that both of the driveways are shared with the neighboring parcels on either side of the subject lot. As a result, there are only two driveway access points to Twin Lake Road regardless of the requirements applied to the Mercil project. The applicants argued that the placement of the garage would preclude visitors and deliveries from gaining access to their "front" door — currently facing north. This is considered a result of the architecture of the home built by the applicants in 2006, and the size of the garage currently proposed. It would be possible to construct a smaller garage and permit access around the garage to the north side of the property, or (possibly) remodel the home to add a more public entrance to the south side of the building as a part of the garage construction project. When the Mercils first approached the City, their construction plans included an attached garage facing south, consistent with the direction of staff that access should be provided to Mitchell Trail. Since this would have been a conforming design, no other planning review was conducted, and in any case, the zoning ordinance does not regulate architectural floor plans. Such design detail is left to the applicants and their architect. In any case, the Mercils decided to forego the garage construction at that time, relying on use of the existing garage on the property. With the proposed garage construction — which staff supports — other zoning regulations come into plan. Planning staff is scheduled to meet with the Mercils prior to the Council meeting and should have additional background on options for the applicants. 2. The second issue for the Planning Commission related to the proposed use of the private driveway improvements in Mitchell Trail. The neighboring property owner to the east objected to the Mercil's access to this driveway, concerned that it would interfere with the improvements they have made to their access, both function and aesthetic. In this regard, one of staffs conditions on its recommendation for approval of the Mercil garage variances related to the need for an agreement regulating maintenance of the private driveway in Mitchell Trail. Some of the Planning Commission members, in response to this issue raised by the neighbor, felt that this condition could not be met, and as a result, were opposed to granting the variances. While the neighboring property owner was concerned about maintaining their private use of the Mitchell Trail driveway, staff pointed out that the land is, in fact, a public right of way and subject to roadway needs of the public at large. It was further pointed out that the City could require improvement of a full public street in this right of way to provide access, although that was not viewed as desirable 2 12