Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />April 9, 1987 <br />The Commission indicated that the property owners involved would have <br />to pay for the plat. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended approval of the concept plan for the property <br />located behind 122, 128 and 134 Twin Lake Blvd. as presented by Robert <br />Leibel with the stipulation that Leibel purchases the triangular <br />piece of property on Twin Lake Blvd. and that the property owner of <br />140 Twin Lake Blvd. purchase this property from Leibel for access <br />and further subject to the recommendations of the Planner as <br />contained in his report dated April 2, 1987. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 7 - 0. <br />Ducharme/ Laurie Strobeen and Therese Ducharme appeared before the Commission <br />Strobeen requesting approval of the division of a small piece of property from <br />Property Strobeen's lot and adjoining it to the Ducharme lot. This would then <br />Division give Mrs. Ducharme adequate frontage to divide her property and-have <br />one additional lot with adequate road frontage. <br />Timmons pointed out the recommendations of the City Planner that <br />existing buildings on the Ducharme property should be removed. <br />Numerous property owners in the Westwind development appeared before <br />the Commission opposing the property division. <br />DeLonais pointed out that another alternative would be for Mrs. <br />Ducharme to run a road into her property. If that were done, there <br />would be more than one lot created which would abutt the Westwind <br />lots. <br />The Westwind property owners were concerned about the type of house <br />Mrs. Ducharme plans to construct. <br />Timmons pointed out that while the Westwind lots contain restrictive <br />covenants, the Ducharme property does. not. Timmons felt that the <br />Westwind properties would be less impacted by this one lot than <br />the alternative of a road with several lots. <br />John Gallasky, 912 Westwind Drive, expressed concern with the existing <br />garages on the property as well as the numerous cars on the property <br />which he questioned as being operable as well as the existence of an <br />auto repair shop on the property. <br />Timmons pointed out that the existing house would be removed and <br />another building moved. However, if there are concerns about Code <br />violations, these should be brought to the attention of the Code <br />Enforcement Officer. <br />Page-7- <br />