CC PACKET 07261988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 he wasn't certain the second garage wouldn't be more of an • 2 obstruction in the backyard. He personally believed an attached 3 garage added more continuity to the property than if it were built in 4 the backyard so close the neighbor's. 5 The Commissioner commented that he didn't think Mr. Tomas driving a 6 van he uses for his work home every night was any different than his 7 carrying his brief case out and into his home every day. 8 He argued that by granting the variance for another garage, the City 9 might be getting some vehicles off the street which was the goal of 10 the ordinance the Council recently passed and he "assumed was going 11 to be enforced" . In response to comments about too many cars on the 12 site, Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived the Commission was 13 trying to make a decision related to the number of cars which can be 14 parked at a residence, which the Council hadn't even been able to 15 come. to grips with when they passed the ordinance allowing parking 16 only on paved surfaces. 17 - Madden indicated that, although he now knew the ordinance had nothing 18 to say about it, was still concerned about adding another curb cut on 19 Silver Lane. He said there are only 8 curb cuts in 85 one 20 hundredths of a mile on the south side of that street in St. Anthony, 21 whereas Penrod Lane, which is three tenths of a mile, has 15 curb 22 cuts on the east side, indicating to him that Penrod is a better 23 street to have curb cuts than Silver Lane which is such a high 24 volume traffic street. • 25 The Commissioner said he had nothing positive to say about the 26 request and instead perceived the problem to be that Mr. Tomas' 27 property was just not large enough to accommodate all the vehicles, a 28 trailer and a boat, and the "various and sundry junk he has laying 29 around there. " Commissioner Madden questioned what use the applicant 30 would make of his new garage if he doesn't use the one he has now 31 for parking cars. He agreed with Commissioner London that the 32 Commission had to take into account the report of a neighbor who is 33 there every day. 34 Werenicz said he had no strong feelings either way but was leaning 35 towards denial. He sympathized with the neighbor but wondered if 36 another . garage might not clear up her view of the property. The 37 Commissioner . said he was , more concerned about the new garage 38 encroaching on the neighbor's property to the east. 39 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he doubted whether the first 40 question in the application should have been answered in the 41 affirmative because he could see no "undue hardship" but rather "an 42 inconvenience" would result "should the ordinance be strictly 43 enforced. " 44 Wagner agreed, saying he personally had some reservations about 45 whether any of the three questions deserved an affirmative answer. 9