Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 11, 2000 <br />correct an existing erosion problem on the hill down to the lake. Tacheny <br />felt that adding the additional garage space to the house as suggested by <br />the Planner will worsen the erosion problem on the hill. Placing the <br />additional garage as indicated on the site plan will keep the run off from <br />this roof away from the hill. <br />Tacheny pointed out that he is proposing the accessory garage in the same <br />location as the garage/chicken coop, and did not think there would be a <br />problem with replacing this building in the same location. Tacheny felt <br />that this location was the most sensible. <br />Tacheny pointed out that a private driveway that he owns serves the lots in <br />this area. <br />It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no problem with <br />the Conditional Use Permit for the additional garage space. Keis pointed <br />out, however, that the issue is the location of the garage and the fact that it <br />is proposed for the front yard of the property. The City Planner noted that <br />detached garages are required to be located behind the rear building line. <br />Kevin King, County Road B-2, indicated that he lives on the lot adjacent <br />to the Tacheny property. King pointed out that the private drive to serve <br />the homes in this area is owned by Mr. Tacheny, while he has an easement <br />for ingress and egress to his property. The property owners using it share <br />maintenance costs for the private drive. <br />Montour pointed out to Mr. King that if the garage is located as proposed <br />by Mr. Tacheny there could be a problem with lights from vehicles <br />shining into the windows of the King home. Mr. King did not feel there <br />would be a problem given the way his house is situated on his lot. <br />Carson asked how the ordinance determines the front yard of a property. <br />The City Planner reported that the ordinance determines front yard as the <br />narrowest legal frontage of a lot that faces the street. The Planner pointed <br />out that the Tacheny lot fronts on a private driveway, and his <br />interpretation of the ordinance applies the same standards using the private <br />drive as the street. The Planner pointed out that there must be a front yard <br />and it is logical to determine that front yard to be the portion of the lot <br />abutting the private drive. <br />Carson pointed out that the owners of lake lots typically consider their <br />frontage abutting the lake to be the front yard. The City Planner pointed <br />out that the ordinance considers front yard to be the side of the lot at <br />which point there is road access. <br />