Laserfiche WebLink
Further discussion ensued regarding the accessory structure placement on the lot and access to <br />and from the building. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if the rear yard could be used for the accessory structure. <br />Ms. Millner indicated a structure in the rear yard would be difficult to access. She explained she <br />and her husband were planning on using the new building for vehicle parking. <br />Commissioner Andrusko inquired if the applicants had considered attaching the structure to the <br />home with dual doors, which would allow for access through the garage. <br />Ms. Millner commented this was considered, but would require large doors in order for a sewer <br />truck to be able to drive through the garage to the back yard. <br />Laura Meyer, 16840 Wolverine Court, stated she has been the Millner's neighbors for the past <br />eight years. She believed the Millner's were kind and generous neighbors that took great care of <br />their property. She encouraged the Commission support the Millner's variance request. <br />Rick Newman, 16821 Wolverine Court, indicated he had submitted written comments to the City <br />regarding his concerns. He recommended that the Commission adhere to the City regulations <br />already in place. He believed the proposed building location would negatively impact his <br />property as he did not want a woodshop adjacent to his bedroom. He suggested the applicants <br />consider another location for their accessory structure. <br />Motion by Commissioner VanScoy, seconded by Commissioner Andrusko, to close the public <br />hearing. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Vice Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners VanScoy, Andrusko, <br />Brauer, and Nosan. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Levine and Commissioner Maul. <br />Vice Chairperson Bauer closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. <br />Commission Business <br />Commissioner VanScoy did not support the variance. He did not believe it would be in keeping <br />with the neighborhood for the Millners to construct a garage in front of their home. <br />Commissioner Andrusko commented that with the City Ordinance as written, he could not <br />support the proposed building location and variance either. <br />Commissioner Nosan did not agree with these statements. She understood that the applicants <br />were interested in parking in the new structure. There was some concern with accessing the <br />septic tank, which means the building could not be placed in the rear yard. She explained she <br />supported the applicant's request. <br />Planning Commission/October 15, 2015 <br />Page 4 of 17 <br />