My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
02-14-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 12:03:40 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 11:37:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTIsS <br />PLANNING COMMlSS10N <br />FEBRUARY 14, 2002 <br />Duray indicated that his position has not changed since August when this <br />CUP was last considered. Duray indicated that he does not feel the size <br />garage proposed is compatible with the surrounding area. <br />Mertes indicated that he would never have purchased the property without <br />the indication from the City that the garage would be approved. Keis <br />pointed out that any time a CUP permit is required, a process has to be <br />followed, and there are no assurances that the CLIP will be approved. <br />Jon Kirgstad, attorney representing Mr. Mertes, indicated that many <br />people in the City have CUP's for garages of this size. Kingstad indicated <br />that the aesthetics of an area is not an issue, it is the City's charge to <br />regulate according to health, welfare, and public safety considerations. <br />Kingstad indicated that there are no standards in the City's Code for <br />regulating based on aesthetics, <br />Keis asked about the previous approval of the CUP back in August. The <br />City Planner indicated that the Council approved a CUP for a reduced <br />amount of square footage, and also required that the accessory garage be <br />moved to within 6 feet of the back of the attached garage. <br />Mertes reviewed his present application fora 36 foot by 28 foot accessory <br />garage set back 16.4 feet {}om the Otto property and even with Mertes' <br />existing deck. <br />A Leeward Way property owner felt that the size accessory garage did not <br />fit in with existing development in the Leeward Way neighborhood, and <br />also expressed concern that the garage would be in his line of sight. <br />Keis indicated that he is torn between granting the CUP as requested by <br />Mertes' or granting a CUP for a smaller size garage. Keis indicated that <br />he is not against the accessory garage itself; the size is the question for <br />him. <br />Knudsen agreed that the issue is what is the appropriate size. He noted <br />that the Mertes property is large and the size of the garage proposed is not <br />inappropriate given the size of the property. <br />Carson recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit fora 36 foot <br />by 28 foot accessory garage at 3058 Greenbrier Street with the gat-age to <br />be placed 16.4 feet from the shared property lire with Mr. Otto, as well as <br />in line with the existing Mertes deck, with the stipulation that the exterior <br />materials for the house and garage match, that there be no commercial use <br />of this garage and there be no hoist installed in the garage, and subject to <br />all other requirements of the City's Code. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.