01-25-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT 76 An option was presented that would be allowed; 77 Findings of Fact were reviewed; 78 Staff and Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to deny the setback variance request. 79 Mayor Rafferty mentioned the grandfather rule; the applicant would be allowed to vary the current 80 setback requirement from current standards but not to the level he requests. 81 Brian Rydlund, 842 Lois Lake. He thanked the council for coming out to his property and looking 82 at the structure. He awaits the council's decision and the logic behind their vote. 83 Councilmember Ruhland asked if there is a variance in the full length of the deck to the lot line and 84 Mr. Rydlund said yes, but it is marginal 85 Councilmember Lyden explained his perspective. This deck has been present for thirty years and 86 there has never been a complaint or problem related to the structure. The issue of health and safety 87 is being identified as the five foot setback. He has sent pictures of other properties (shown on 88 screen) with thirteen feet between homes. If the question is safety (fire), his examples would 89 present the same issue. A picture of the applicant's property was shown with more space between. 90 He feels confident the neighbor's will not be building a deck. 91 Councilmember Lyden moved to approve the variance but only with a minimum of ten feet distance 92 between structures to be maintained now and in the future. 93 Mayor Rafferty said he has visited the site several times and has looked from different views. He 94 feels that he must recognize that there are rules in place and they must be taken seriously. Is it 95 wrong for the applicant to come forward and request a variance — of course not. There is a way to 96 move forward in a modified manner. The mayor said he would not support a variance. 97 Councilmember Cavegn said he has visited the site as well. The applicant did not cause the 98 problem but yet the deck falls outside of regulations. He is concerned about how the City can 99 prevent something like this from happening again? The applicant is just trying to improve his 10o property. City Planner Larsen noted that residents are encouraged to contact City Hall before 101 projects. Ms. Larsen added that the neighbor maintains the right to use their setback and it could 102 impact the space between properties. 103 Councilmember Stoesz remarked that he has concern that Councilmember's Lyden motion would 104 not stay workable in the future. 105 Councilmember Stoesz moved to approve Resolution No. 20-131 as presented. 106 Ruhland asked is it possible that the homeowner could have a structure that hinged up? Ms. Larson 107 said that would still be a structure and it would not comply. 108 Councilmember Ruhland seconded the Stoesz motion. 109 Councilmember Lyden argued that this is a question about one resident and one situation. If the 110 City can't work out something for this resident, that represents government being too large. The 111 council has an obligation to use common sense in making these decisions. 112 Motion carried on a voice vote. Councilmember Lyden recorded as voting no. 113 6B) Consider Resolution No. 20-02, Authorizing Preparation of Storm Water Utility 114 Feasibility Study - Community Development Director Grochala noted that the resolution authorizes 115 a study. He pointed out that the council has discussed this option and the elements of establishing a 3