Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MAY 12, 1994 <br />Quam replied that he is proposing the second accessory <br />building in order to save some oak trees. There are <br />oak trees on both sides of the existing accessory <br />building which would have to be cut down if he chose to <br />add on to either side. <br />Garske felt the addition of accessory space should be <br />made to the back of the existing accessory building <br />whether oak trees would have to be removed or not. <br />Garske stated that he did not understand the need for a <br />second accessory building. Garske again indicated that <br />the front yard setback of the adjacent house was an <br />enforcement issue. <br />Quam felt that he should be held to the same criteria <br />as the property next door, therefore, allowed a 24 foot <br />front yard setback. However, Quam indicated that he <br />could modify his plan and comply with a 30 foot <br />setback. <br />Davison suggested that the matter be tabled until the <br />setback of the adjacent property can be checked out. <br />Garske did not believe that two wrongs would make a <br />right and felt the setback of the adjacent house was a <br />separate issue. <br />Schletty pointed out that the Planning Commission has <br />taken a hard stand on variance requests. Schletty was <br />concerned with having two accessory buildings on the <br />Quam property right up to the street, and felt there <br />was a better way for Mr. Quam to add to his accessory <br />space than to construct a second accessory building. <br />Garske pointed out the factors listed in the Planner's <br />report to be used in evaluating a CUP request. Garske <br />noted that #4 addresses whether or not an accessory <br />building would depreciate the area. Garske felt that <br />small sheds and accessory buildings do devalue an area, <br />and suggested that the better way to address Mr. Quam's <br />need for additional accessory space would be to add <br />that space on to the back of his existing accessory <br />building. <br />Quam noted that the City Planner has recommended <br />approval of the CUP provided that the additional <br />accessory building complies with the 30 foot front yard <br />6 <br />Page 8 <br />