2000_0724_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 3 4 5 6 � s 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Reichenbach clarified the garage setbacks. He explained the need for storage, noting that he has studied this for over one year. Member Egli asked if off-site storage was possible (previously done and not acceptable nay longer). Why not a five foot setback (yes, boat doesn't fit easily). Member Cunningham asked when the house was purchased ( 10 years). Did the property owner to the south ask that garage be moved (no)? Is there an adverse possession requirement here? (no) Member Mulder noted that the one vehicle will left outside even if garage is built (yes). Member Wilke asked if the turn-around could be required (yes). Member Olson asked if diagonal placement of the garage had been considered (yes). Member Egli asked if neighbors' garages were the same size (Mr. Reichenbach explained that to the north — same size; to the east two garages are larger). There were no questions from the public. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Chair Klausing asked what was the physical hardship; a 435 s.f. garage could be added without variances for lot coverage. Member Mulder said the driveway length and large front yard might be hardships for the variance, not allowing a usable garage of 750 s.f.. However, adding the CUP request for an 832 s.f. garage is a problem. Chair Klausing felt there was not an unusable or unreasonable use of the site with a 435 s.f. garage. Member Rhody stated the hardship is a small lot (62 feet), less than normal size; the size of the garage is not outlandish to him. Member Mulder stated the hardship is the 50-foot front setback that creates the longer driveway than would otherwise be needed; he could not justify the CUP.