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