Laserfiche WebLink
September 14, 1977 <br />Page 4 <br />~°a,recommended that he approach the Planning Cuinmission for their decision. <br />Cheirperson Haake stated that the only times the Planning Commtsslon has ai7owed <br />dr1veways that close to the property lin• was when people have reniodeled their <br />gara9es lnto famity roams or an addition to their house and then added a new garage <br />behind their house and needed the variance in order to be able to drlve back to the <br />new gnrage. <br />Comnission Member fedor asked Mr, Schmidt what his ~eighbor thou~ht of the driveway <br />being thet ciose to their shared lot line. Mr. Schmtdt replied that he has a <br />notarized ietter from his neighbor stating Chat he had discussed the driveway with <br />him and that the neighbur was not age9nst it. Mr. Schmidt also stated that he did <br />not have nny racing cars or boats that would be kept on the driveway but thaC he did <br />want the extra parking space for his guests and for h1s children. <br />Commission Member Burmeister stated that his regular dri~eway was aiready large enough <br />for his guzsts and for his children to play on. <br />Chzirperson Haake inquired if the driveway was asphait or cement. Mr. SchmidC replied <br />Yhat it was asphalt. Chairperson Haake pointed out that the extension ~ould be cut <br />4' to meet the 5' code requirement and still provide an extra 8' of paved surface <br />$ince the garage daor is 3' in from the end of the garage, whfch would be enough sF~ace <br />Sn which to park a Chird car. <br />Commission Member Fedor asked the Comnission t4embers to remember that the neighbor had <br />said the drivewny did not bother him. Corcenlsslon 14ember Burmeister replied that the <br />Vlanning Commiss9on could not te11 one oerson to take out his cement driveway which <br />was in violatian aiid then 1et anether persnn Ieave his asphait driveway in. <br />Comnission Member Fedor asked if there were any exceptions that the City had made on <br />similar situations before. Offiaial Rose replied that several variances have been <br />granted for 7ess tban 5' but pointed out that a hardship is required for grantiny a <br />variance. <br />Co~iission ~Qember Fador stated that the Planning Commission had once granted.a variance <br />of that nature ta save a tree and that va~°iances have been granted before. <br />ChairpeYSOn Haake asked where the garage was lncated on the lot ad~acent to Mr. S~hmidt's. <br />Mr. Schmidt replied that it was on the far side, away from his house. Chairperson Haake <br />alsn pointed aut that the Planning Comnission cauld not teke into consideration ti~e fac4 <br />that Mr. Schmid~ was not pTanning on parking race cars or boats on the driveway as the <br />City did not know•how long he would be the owner of the prapert.y. <br />Commission Member Burmeister stated that she felt if Mr. Schm9dt had come in before the <br />Griveway was laid and requested a variance, Chat it most likely would not have been <br />granted. Comnission Member Fedor asked the Planning Comnissiun to remember that <br />Mr. Schmidt hr.d cane 1n to the City on his own efter realizing that fie was in violation, <br />while there were several other violators within the City who have not come in and <br />reported themselves. <br />Commission Member Foss asked ~ir. Schmidt if he ta'iked to his builder 6eE~re tha <br />driveway taas put in. Mr. Schmidt rePtied that he had discussed tt wdth the builder <br />~./ before the paving was done and that he had intended for it to be narrower to allow h9m <br />ta put in shrubbery betwean the driveway and fence, buC that the workers had go~~en <br />carried away while laying the driveway and came within 1' of the loL 71ne. He steted <br />