CC MINUTES 07261988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Sundland responded to the Commissioner's concern about preventing further expansion of what business activities might be carried on in the 3 Tomas home by telling him that after the Commission and Council had 4 grappled with the issues of businesses in homes for a long time, the 5 City Attorney had advised them not to get too involved in writing 6 ordinances about businesses which didn't generate a lot of outside 7 traffic to a neighborhood. The legal adviser had indicated businesses 8 like beauty shops in homes were the types of businesses the City could 9 disallow, but there might be a lot of difficulties involved in trying 10 to distinguish the differences between workers who all left and 11 returned to their homes via whatever form of transportation worked best 12 for them personally. 13 Nicole Tomas gave the last testimony in favor of the variances. She 14 reminded those present that when someone at the hearing had complained 15 about "too many people" they were talking about members of her family. 16 She also said "hopefully some of the vehicles can be parked in the new 17 garage addition." 18 Makowske indicated she could still not accept Councilmember Marks' 19 conclusions about what constituted a "hardship" and reiterated her 20 reasoning in the following: 21 Council Action 22 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enrooth to grant the request from 23 Eugene B. Tomas, 4029 Penrod Lane N.E., for a variance from the setback 4 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 32 foot X 24 foot e5 addition to the east side of the existing garage which would be 11 feet 26 from the Silver Lane property line as well as the variance necessary 27 for the proposed second floor addition to the existing garage. 28 In granting these variances, the Council finds that: 29 1. The three conditions required by statute are met in the 30 affirmative because it appears the physical surroundings, including the 31 patio and yard area, would best be served by the proposed extension of 32 the garage as proposed. 33 2. In light of recent ordinance changes in which the City was 34 trying to discourage outdoor parking, it seems logical for the Council 35 to grant a variance now which provides more indoor parking for this 36 parcel. 37 3. The variance to allow an 11 foot setback from the Silver Lane 38 property line where the City Ordinance requires 30 feet is perceived as 39 only an extension of a variance which was granted for the property 40 when it was first built. 41 4. The applicant understands that he can't park any of his vehicles 42 on the City boulevard and that the City Zoning Ordinance forbids his 14