Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />APPROVED <br />160 <br />Proposed deck rendering was shown; <br />161 <br />- There is opportunity to construct the staircase and walkway but not as proposed; <br />162 <br />Neighbors have expressed support for the variance but that is not normally a formal part of <br />163 <br />consideration; <br />164 <br />Findings of fact were reviewed; <br />165 <br />Planning and Zoning Board approved the staff recommendation to deny the variance request. <br />166 <br />Councilmember Cavegn asked, if the property owners were not asking to build onto the deck, would <br />167 <br />the they be required to remove the existing deck and Ms. Larsen suggested that expansion or <br />168 <br />remodeling triggers the City's involvement. Historically the deck has never met the setback <br />169 <br />requirement. <br />170 <br />Councilmember Lyden said the owners are saying they want to reasonably keep what they have had. <br />171 <br />Staff is doing their job. Rules exist for the public good but not just for the purpose of being a rule. <br />172 <br />There must be some public good. The council is called to use discretion when that is necessary. <br />173 <br />He is supporting the variance because the deck was not a problem when it was built in 1990. It did <br />174 <br />not become an issue for thirty years so it's common sense to grant the variance now. He suggests <br />175 <br />tabling the matter if everyone hasn't seen the situation in person. <br />176 <br />Councilmember Cavegn said his concern is if a new neighbor came in and they had a problem and <br />177 <br />one that would perhaps require removal of the deck. <br />178 <br />Mayor Rafferty noted the guidelines are in place to create an avenue if there is concern and that <br />179 <br />provides guidance to go forward. The property owner coming forward was not any wrongdoing but <br />180 <br />the deck is not in compliance and when that was identified is not the issue. He has driven by and <br />181 <br />has seen the deck from the street. <br />182 <br />Councilmember Stoesz said he has not visited the property and Councilmember Cavegn said he did <br />183 <br />not visit the site. Councilmember Lyden suggested that the matter be tabled until everyone sees the <br />184 <br />situation. <br />185 <br />The property owner, Brian Rydlund, spoke. He said they had two decks when the property was <br />186 <br />purchased in 1991. They discovered the issue when they wanted to replace the decks. They are not <br />187 <br />looking to build a walkway but to replace what they have. They want to keep what they reasonably <br />188 <br />had and have used for thirty years (for safety, for siding project). What he asked of the Planning & <br />189 <br />Zoning Board was only to replace what they currently have (not to expand). A five foot deck would <br />190 <br />basically be useless. <br />191 <br />Mayor Rafferty said he doesn't believe he will change his opinion but he is willing to table the <br />192 <br />matter and allow time for a visit. The property owner said he would greatly appreciate that. <br />193 <br />Councilmember Cavegn moved to table Resolution No. 20-131, as presented. Councilmember <br />194 <br />Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried: Yeas, 4; Nays none (Absent— Ruhland). <br />195 <br />On the schedule for a project, the property owner noted the difficulty of purchasing decking and <br />196 <br />wood and updated the council on where the project stands at current (all within requirements). The <br />197 <br />matter doesn't have to come back in two weeks but Mayor Rafferty suggests that the <br />198 <br />councilmembers visit before the snow flies. Perhaps a work session discussion would be the next <br />199 <br />appropriate step. <br />200 <br />Item 6E had been removed from the agenda prior to the meeting. <br />