Laserfiche WebLink
tilzrrUTEs <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 22, ?001 <br />from her property. Mackley also stated that she would like some guarantees <br />that this will not happen and that the siding on the garage will match the house. <br />Fahey pointed out that the CUP would have the restriction that there be no <br />business use of the property, and this would be a policing issue for the City. <br />Mackley pointed out that the Mentes have indicated that there would be o0 <br />business use. What assurances are there that the next owner of the property <br />would not operate a business in the neighborhood? Mackley again questioned <br />the square footages of the garages. <br />Fahey again pointed out that the City would have to police the use of the <br />garage. He indicated that the site plan shows the existing garage at 20 feet by <br />24 feet and the revised proposal shows an accessory garage at 22 feet by 24 <br />feet. Fahey indicated that the Building Official can verify the size of the <br />existing garage. Fahey felt that the issue of garage size can be easily verified. <br />Fahey pointed out that the CUP process contemplates allowing large garages <br />on large lots. However, whether or not the garage fits the character of the <br />neighborhood is one of the considerations in reviewing a CUP application. <br />N[ackley asked if the Mentes' vehicles are licensed. LaValle pointed out that <br />only licensed vehicles can be stored outside. However, if vehicles are stored <br />inside, they can be unlicensed. LaValle suggested that the trailer that is <br />currently being stored on the propei2y is objectionable. <br />Mentes indicated that the a ailer was purchased to store things that would be <br />moved into the new garage once it is constructed. Once that garage is up, the <br />trailer will be sold. <br />Mackley pointed out that there are other options available such as off-site <br />storage and asked that the Council take that into consideration. <br />Dennis Route, 3055 Greenbrier Street, stated that his concern was the size of <br />the garage proposed. Fahey pointed out that the new proposal downsizes the <br />garage to 2'_ feet by'_5 feet and relocates a to 5 met behind the exisrng garage. <br />Total garage space would then be at approximately 990 square feet which <br />meets the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Fahey felt that <br />the revised proposal meets the intent of the ordinance and lessens the impact <br />on the adjacent property. <br />Route asked the height of the proposed garage. The City Planner indicated that <br />the maximum height allowed by ordinance would be 15 feet. <br />a <br />