Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 23, 1996 <br />RICHARD THORP, 470 COSTA LANE, SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF <br />THE ACCESSORY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE <br />REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (4) Scalze, LaValle, Pedersen, Fahey. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Thorp pointed out that the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of his variance request. However, <br />when he appealed the Council's denial, the Planning <br />Commission upheld that denial. Thorp asked why the <br />Planning Commission's initial recommendation in support <br />of the variance had no effect on the Council's <br />decision. <br />Scalze replied that the Planning Commission was trying <br />to assist Mr. Thorp and if they had known of the <br />Council's willingness to assist with relocation of the <br />shed, they may have recommended for denial initially. <br />Fahey again pointed out that the shed is clearly in <br />violation of the ordinance, no hardship exists to <br />warrant a variance, and if the Council approved this <br />variance, it would have to approve a variance for Mr. <br />Jebens. Fahey suggested that if this variance were <br />approved, the City would have to let anyone put up a <br />shed in the required setback area. <br />Thorp asked if the City would reimburse him for his <br />cost in relocating the shed, or if it would cover his <br />costs for the shed if he decided to remove it. Thorp <br />suggested he may remove the shed entirely rather than <br />relocate it to his back yard. <br />Fahey stated his impression was the shed was necessary <br />in order to store his children's toys since the garage <br />is occupied by equipment associated with Thorp's home <br />occupation. Fahey suggested Mr. Thorp meet with the <br />City Administrator to discuss the options for either <br />removal or relocation of the shed as well as the City's <br />participation in the cost, and that a recommendation be <br />brought back to the Council. <br />There was no one present from the general public <br />wishing to comment on the appeal of variance denial for <br />the shed. <br />Upon motion by Scalze, seconded by LaValle, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />6 <br />