Laserfiche WebLink
r~z r~iures <br />City Counr.il <br />Plov. 2Fi, 198b <br />Pleam~ <br />('roperty <br />Division <br />(ConC.) <br />f2^cC£SS <br />Col l ova statecf ~hat he di d not 1 i!<e the i dea ofi c~.itY.i ng o Ff a <br />~ortion of the existing garage and a double garage beino <br />construc~ted i n the bac!.. <br />;-rs. Scalze reaci tYie definif:ion oP hardshin contained in the <br />ordinance. <br />Fahey agreed that if 'the variance request sited b.y trie Planner <br />d~as d°n~ieci, t:t~ Neamy reqii2st shoulci be denied as vr~ll. <br />h~irs. ~leariy pointecl out that she is not requesting 1 variance and <br />v~ill cut off 4~.5 feet from her gara~~e. Dleamy asi<ed if she wou1c{ <br />be allovred to construct a garane on the bac!< of her proaerty. <br />Tne P1 annsr s tats~d that a condi ti onal use ner!~ii t i s rec,ui red for <br />a second naraye. <br />Collova stateci that he E~ras concerned that a business miaht be <br />onerate<( from the second qarlge. <br />Fahey did no~t feel the conditional use oermit for ~ second yaraye <br />wo~ild bE denied, unless the neighbors objec'ted to it. <br />Council disc~issed with ~~1r. "~oore and ~~rs. t~leaimi the~~ridths o~P ~the <br />three proposed 1o~ts. <br />Council rteci~led to r^cess at 9:3? P.?~". to ~ive P1rs. Rea~ny and ^1r. <br />;~~'oore an opportuni ty to di scuss i:he 1 ot ~rai dths. 7he rneeti nci was <br />reconvened at 9:~40 P.h+i. <br />~~ioore as!<e<.1 if the existiny garac?e +,iere turneci into a famil,y-room <br />if no concfitional use permit s~ere needed For a second c~arage. <br />The Planner st~ted tnat this edas correct, antl only a buil<!in~ <br />pern~i t vtoul d be requi red. <br />C,ouncil discussed at what point a bGiil<.linc7 perrn <br />Por I_o~; A, and it ~;das decitl~d t?iat the building <br />could be issuec~ 1t the t~me the R.5 feet of th~ <br />~aere remove~, but Che biailding permit for Lot ° <br />riqht asiav. <br />it; could be issued <br />perniit for Lot ~'l <br />existinq garane <br />could be issued <br />P~is. Nardi ni al so poi nted o~it tYiat a nea~i survey of t'ne property +:t411 <br />be necessary as ~,ae11 as drainage easaments on lot lines if required <br />by the Ci ty t ilCJl t1CQF". <br />i^r. fslesener and h9r. Collova indicated that they felt a variance <br />for th~ siue yard setbac!< s~ras the proper way to hancile this <br />reqi.iest rather than requiring that part of the existing garage be <br />removed. <br />Paa~ -16- <br />