Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST IG, 200i <br />house in order to minimize the impact on property owners on Leeward <br />Way. <br />Barraclough suggested the following two options: that the existing garage <br />be added onto and total garage space be kept under 1,000 square feet, or a <br />detached garage be constructed no more than 6 feet from the rear of the <br />existing garage with total garage space kept under 1,000 square feet. <br />Barraclough pointed out that if a detached garage were constructed, the <br />two car garage door would still be accessible since the garage could be <br />placed 10 feet f?om the property line somewhat offset from behind the <br />existing garage. It would be the service door that would likely be behind <br />the existing garage, and 6 feet of separation is plenty of room for access <br />through a service door. Barraclough felt that either of these two options <br />would bean acceptable compromise situation. <br />Nir. Mentes pointed out that the location he is proposing for the accessory <br />garage is closer to his neighbor's garage. Therefore, he felt the impact <br />would be (ess than moving the garage to within 6 feet of his attached <br />garage. Mr. Mentes also indicated that if the garage were placed as he has <br />proposed, he could increase the setback to 15 feet from the south property <br />line rather than the 10 feet shown on the site plan. <br />Carson asked the feasibility of moving the garage to the north side of the <br />lot. Mr. Mentes did not feel that was feasible given this area is low and <br />tends to flood in the spring. <br />Dennis Rotten, Greenbrier Street, indicated that he was opposed to the <br />garage as it is too lame. He also indicated that the property owner to the <br />south of Mr. Mentes informed him that he was opposed because the <br />garage was too large and would be too close to his property. NIr. Rotten <br />was concerned about the additional driveway that would be installed to <br />access the garage and felt the result would be the appearance of a parking <br />lot. <br />tt was noted that the City received one anonymous call today in opposition <br />to the accessory garage. <br />Mr. Mentes indicated that the additional driveway would be kept to the <br />minimum width required for a car. <br />Duray indicated that he was more inclined to support an addition to the <br />existing garage rather than a detached accessory garage. Duray felt that <br />the lot did not seem Large enough for the size detached structure being <br />proposed. NIr. Mentes pointed out that the lot is 24,700 square feet in size. <br />Carson asked the height of the proposed building. The City Planner <br />indicated that the building would be 15 feet high to the peak. <br />