My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-2002 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
01-23-2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 1:05:26 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 2:04:34 PM
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.
/
7
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
MINU'i'G;S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 23, 2002 <br />REQUEST FOR <br />RECONSIDER- <br />ATION O[' CUP <br />APPROVAL- <br />3058 <br />GREENBRIER - <br />M ENTES <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUESTED BYSAM R073ERTO PENDING A <br />RECOMMENDAT70N FROM THE PI ANN/NG COMMLSSION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scalze, Montour, Fahey, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Mr. Rick Ducharme, representing Al 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 22, 2001. <br />Ducharme reported that the requirements of the CUP were not <br />workable. Ducharme also outlined the history of the Mertes' purchase of the <br />property, and 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 of the 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 Menses' 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 concept was for an attached or detached garage. <br />Ducharme replied that is was for detached. He indicated that an addition to the <br />existing garage would be difficult to construct He also indicated that a <br />detached accessory garage does fit 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 occw~ at the <br />meeting immediately following the one where action was taken. Fahey <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.