PCAgenda_93Feb22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. ~ Demolish the structure - go back to square one for a garage within the 600 foot code and in keeping with the other 1 and 2-car garages in the area. There is one 3-car garage, a variance granted to a previous owner -which at the time lt was built should have been contested; lt is far less obtrusive than the 4-car garage. Mr. Brace could then seek reimbursement for his costs from the City's errors and omissions • insurance carrier. It must be noted the Commission stated that a permit fora 4-car garage would never have been granted if no garage was on the property. Since Mr. Brace was destroying a garage, there in effect was no aaracte on the property; a fact either overlooked or misunderstood by the Commission. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend to the Council alternative 1. This, in their opinion, would create the least financial hardship and inconvenience to Mr. Brace. The following Wednesday, the City Council met to consider the Planning Commissions's recommendations. Mr. Brace and Mrs. IGng spoke briefly and comments of neighbors present were addressed. "An owner should be allowed to do whatever he wished to do on his own arooerty" There would be no need for codes or laws under such an assumption. Codes protect other owners' property values and the appearance of the neighborhood is preserved. We need to be good neighbors and consider the welfare of others. They had no objections to the 3-car garage across the alley. Originally, a 1-car garage on the property across the alley was in view. When the garage was extended to a 3-car garage, the new section was behind the garage across the alley and did not obstruct their view. 3. A neighbor expressed his extreme disoleasure with the city for "dropping the ball." 4. A council member stated that the 8 people who originally signed the petition indicating they did not • disapprove of the structure might be unwilling to sign lt again when considering the financial impact to their properties. When properties are sold, price is determined by comparables in the area - to devalue several houses in a block reduces the resale value of all properties and makes properties more difficult to sell. THIS WAS THE KEY ISSUE TO PROTECTING NOT JUST OUR PROPERTY VALUE BUT THOSE OF OUR NEIGHBORS! 5. A council member addressed Mr. Brace stating the garage was a "monstrosity" and to put a 4-car garage on a 50-foot lot was "ridiculous." Discussions closed - a vote was called. Stating the city was at fault -had made a serious mistake, that they were embarrassed and "holding their noses," they voted to grant the variances needed and to lift the stop-work order. Attached to the ruling is a provision that should the structure be destroyed by 50% or more (regardless of the reason for the destruction), lt could not be rebuilt. Note: This attached provision by the council makes lt very clear that a 4-car garage on small lots is not acceptable. City officials stated that Mrs. Kng had taught them a lesson and assurance was given that extreme diligence would be exercised to avoid a repeat of their mistake which created hardships, both in stress, time and expense for all parties. AS RESIDENTS OF FALCON HEIGHTS, WE MUST DEMAND OUR CITY OFFICIALS ADHERE TO CODES AND BE • AWARE AT ALL TIMES OF THEIR DUTY TO PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES AND MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF FALCON HEIGHTS.