Laserfiche WebLink
MLN U'i'ES <br />CI'T'Y COUNC:11_, <br />J.-~NUARY 23, 2002 <br />y.J <br />REQUEST FO12 <br />RECONSI:.DER- <br />AT10N OI' CUP <br />APPROVAL- <br />3058 <br />GRE1;N 13RC,ER - <br />MENTES <br />RIGfiT-OF-W,4 Y REQ U6S7ED 13Y SAB~I ROI3ERT0 PENDING A <br />2ECOMbIENDATION FRO[YI THE PLANNING COMb1LSSCON' <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scalze, Montour, Fahey, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Nlr. Rick Ducharme, representing AI and Cindy Mertes, appeared before <br />the Council requesting a reconsideration of a Conditional Use Permit <br />approval for accessory garage that was granted on August 32, 2001. <br />Ducharme reported that the requirements of the CUP were not <br />workable. Ducharme also outlined the history of the Nlentes' purchase of the <br />property, a.nd information they received that led them to believe a 1,000 square <br />foot accessory garage would be allowed to be constructed on their property. <br />He noted that the lot is large, and that a 1,000 square foot garage would be in <br />keeping with the scale of lots in the area and the character of the neighborhood. <br />Fahey noted the careful consideration that both the Planning Commission and <br />the City Council gave ofthe Mertes application. He also noted the <br />neighborhood input that was heard as part of the public hearing process. Fahey <br />indicated that unless there is a new proposal or some new information to <br />consider, the CUP should stand as approved. <br />Ducharme indicated that the Mertes' have a revised plan that they would like <br />considered which they believe is a compromise from what was originally <br />" proposed and what was ultimately approved. <br />Anderson felt that if the Mertes' have a different option to present, that the <br />matter should be reconsidered. Anderson pointed out that this should not be <br />taken as an indication that the Council will approve the new proposal, <br />however. <br />LaValle asked if the revised concepC was for an attached or detached garage. <br />Ducharme replied that it was for detached. He indicated that an addition to the <br />existing gara~~e would be difficult to construct He also indicated that a <br />detached accessory garage does tit in aesthetically with the character of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Scalze indicated that a reconsideration of the CUP would have to apply to the <br />original proposal Anew proposal would require the CUP process to be <br />repeated. The City Attorney agreed. <br />Fahey also pointed out that typically a reconsideration must occur at the <br />meeting immediately following the one where action was taken. Fahey <br />i <br />