Laserfiche WebLink
M1NUT>JS <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 14, 2002 <br />M~NTGS that he discussed the location of the garage with his neighbor, Tom Otto, <br />and they agreed that the best location for it would be 16.4 feet from the <br />shared property line between Mertes and Otto, as well as bringing the <br />garage in line with the Mertes deck. <br />Mertes reviewed the history of this issue beginning with the fact that he <br />contacted the City prior to purchasing the property and was informed that <br />he would be able to get a CUP to construct a large detached accessory <br />garage. He also noted his previous application which was modified by the <br />City Council and alleged that during consideration of that CUP application <br />there was false and inacem~ate information presented to the City. <br />Mertes reported that the garage would have vinyl siding and aluminum <br />sofFts. Once the garage is constructed, the house would be resided to <br />match the garage. <br />One property owner in the area indicated that she opposed the garage <br />given it would block her line of sight. Another property owner indicated <br />that he opposed the garage as he felt it was too large for the area. <br />Carson asked about roof height. The Planner noted that the Code limits <br />height to 15 feet at the mid-point of the roof. This roof would be lower <br />than that and would meet Code. <br />Mertes reported that there would be no business use it the garage. The <br />garage is intended for storage purposes. Once the garage is constructed, <br />the trailer that is on the property will be removed. <br />Keis pointed out that the issue is whether or not the size of the garage is in <br />keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Keis pointed out that <br />when this CUP was considered last year, the final approval was for an <br />accessory garage smaller than what Mr. Mertes is requesting. <br />Mertes indicated that the size garage that was approved was too small and <br />would rot meet his storage needs. Mertes pointed out that his neighbor <br />Mr. Otto has agreed to the garage proposed with the location modified as <br />stated earlier. Mr. I<eis indicated that it is his understanding that Mr. Otto <br />is still opposed to the garage, however, if the City is inclined to approve <br />the CUP, he would prefer the location of 16.4 feet from the property line <br />and even with the Mertes' deck. <br />Mertes indicated that the report submitted by Northwest Associates is <br />completely false and stated that the garage he is proposing is not out of <br />character with the neighborhood. <br />