Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />PAGE 3 . c <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21, 1980 - PAGE 4 <br />lOLD CARLSObi <br />>rest Arms <br />PLAN REVIEW <br />I Cont. <br />Mr. Grones was present. The only concern expressed <br />was by Wilson that the location of this garage, would <br />possibly restrict the neighbor if he wanted to build <br />a garage. McDonald felt the Commission should only <br />deal with this application as we have not had any <br />comments from the neighbors and did not know if he <br />wanted to build a garage. Staff recommends that the <br />shed be moved as a condition of approval. Mr. Grones <br />indicated he would not have a problem with relocating <br />this shed. Mr. Grones noted that the hardships were <br />topography, location of trees and this is the only <br />location for a garage. No public comments were heard. <br />Frahm moved to recommend approval of the side setback <br />variance as in this climate a garage is necessary <br />finding the hardships of lot size, house location, <br />location of mature trees, and it is consistent with <br />neighborhood development contingent on the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Shed must be relocated in rear yard. <br />2. Left side yard must remain clear for emergency <br />vehicle use. <br />Motion seconded by McDonald. Vote: Ayes (6), <br />Nays (0). Motion passed unanimously. <br />KIRK GRONES <br />3580 Livingston <br />Avenue <br />VARIANCE <br />(#553) <br />JOHNSTON <br />illow Dr. So <br />TRADE <br />) <br />Mr. Hepp was present. Wilson vacated his seat as <br />Mr. Hepp is a client of his firm. Mabusth stated <br />that a survey showing the existing driveway would be <br />required to determine the actual building area for <br />Lot 2. Mr. Hepp did present a survey showing the <br />existing driveway. Mr. Hepp stated that although <br />he could divide the property in such a way as to meet <br />the required lakeshore area for both lots, he would <br />prefer using a corridor or outlot for the rear lot <br />due to the layout of the lot. At this point, Hannah <br />vacated his seat as he felt his pending litigation <br />would be a conflict. <br />The consensus of the Planning Commission was that they <br />would not favor any arrangement of this type - no <br />riparian rights would be given unless the division was <br />accomplished with the required lakeshore frontage being <br />met by both lots. <br />BRUCE HEPP <br />2605 W. Lafayetb <br />Road <br />SUBDIVISION <br />Work Session <br />(#545)