Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />X <br />Mrs. Olson stated a garage would also be more aesthetically pleasing since they would be able to store <br />their vehicles and other items inside. <br />Rahn stated in his view it is possible to construct an attached garage on this lot and still remain below the <br />15 percent structural coverage. Rahn stated the Planning Comnj^ssion to his recollection has never <br />granted a variance to structural coverage. I ^ <br />Winkey stated it would be easier to construct a detached ^mige bul|kat it is ppssible to construct a garage <br />- r • ».r? <br />on this lot without exceeding the structural coverage^ <br />Mr. Olson stated they are financially unable to do the that was proposed <br />Commissioner Rahn. <br />Mrs. Olson questioned whether an attached garage wiitCi^lving space above'it would look just as massive <br />as a detached garage. <br />Jurgens noted property owners are ailowedlo ^struct up but ttiat they are required to stay within a <br />certain footprint. Jurgens inquired writer tf^ applimts would li|te to table their application to explore <br />their options. <br />V -... - <br />Mrs. Olson stated they have l(^^ it.|;number of different options but most are cost prohibitive. <br />Fritzler noi|edthiiitiilra some iand-‘i^iriii^.^is lot which is not their property and that the applicants <br />•»i:;:; _.. _ , ■ <br />GBfl|on^ted it is a county N|^|j»f-^ay and that the county in the past has allowed property owners to <br />^,it’M'%yeway access. ^ <br />pr:h? <br />Jurgenfi^^.m^,unty still^^ fi|^te to that land and could possibly have some objection to <br />cunstructing a^ni^'m <br />*■*1- <br />Rahn inquired whethw^Jj|lplicants vrould like their application tabled. <br />Bremer pointed out the af^licants could argue their case before the Council if they have no intention to <br />revise their plans. <br />Mr. Olson stated he is not financially able to remodel the residence in order to construct a garage. <br />*■