11/10/2008 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES November 10, 2008 APPROVED 065 added that the proposed addition meets all the dimension requirements of the city code. There are currently large spruce trees in place that will very effectively screen that area for the 127 neighbors. He urges the council to approve the resolution presented by staff. Further delay will 128 mean additional costs to Mr. Smith. 129 130 Attorney Chris Johnson, representing the Schwartz's, presented the following points. The 131 proposed structure is over 250 feet in length, 35 feet high, and includes a flat wall with no 132 windows and will be eleven feet from the Schwartz's property line. Staff is recommending 133 following the "spirit" of the code, however, he disagrees that that is appropriate. The spirit of the 134 ordinance would actually favor not granting this building permit. Something like this shouldn't 135 be allowed in a residentially zoned area. He believes that this type of a structure is clearly 136 prohibited by city ordinance since the city has interpreted the same ordinance to include attached 137 garages. This is a property that could be built further from the Schwarz's property line. Mr. 138 Johnson submitted a review of documents relative to the proposed improvements that was 139 written by Engineer Steven W. Thatcher. 140 141 Ms. Julie Schwartz, 2140 Otter Lake Road, addressed the council. She is a former Planning and 142 Zoning Board member who was actually involved in the establishment of the current regulations. 143 She believes the city is not interpreting the regulations appropriately. She implores the city to 144 use a literal interpretation. The proposed building project will cause irreparable damage to her 145 property. 146 7 Attorney Griffith was allowed to rebut. He suggested that a literal interpretation is not possible 48 because the regulations are not that clear. The fact is that if Mr. Smith's architect had not used 149 the term "sports court" but rather termed the project a "recreation room" on the permit 150 application, there would be no question. He reminded the council that the proposed project fully 151 meets the city's set back requirements. The ground work for the project is already done and 152 further delay is not appropriate. He asks that that council look to their staff, past practice and 153 common sense for interpretation in this matter. 154 155 Attorney Johnson rebutted. The proposed improvement is a near 3,000 square foot room — that is 156 not a pool room or a bedroom. The size of the structure does not fit with the rest of the 157 neighborhood. He believes the interpretation is clear that this should not be allowed. 158 159 The council reviewed the amount of distance that would exist between actual structures. They 160 confirmed that if this addition was called a bedroom on the permit application there would be no 161 issue. If the permit was denied, the applicant could submit a new application using another 162 description of the addition however that could still be contested. The council also confirmed that 163 there are no variances involved in the request. They were informed that setback requirements are 164 not related to structure size. 165 166 City Attorney Baumgartner reminded the council that their discussion should be on interpretation 167 of the existing regulations only. 168 AN69 The council reviewed a rendering showing that the closest distance between the two structures 70 would be 35 feet. -4-