CC PACKET 08231988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 The Mayor told Marks he agreed with his report on the "touchy 2 situation" the Council faced when it unsuccessfully tried to pass an • 3 ordinance which dictated how many vehicles a homeowner could have, which 4 in his own estimation was not much different than trying to restrict the 5 number of children in a family. Mayor Sundland said, however, that he 6 had agreed wholeheartedly with the final ordinance restriction against 7 parking on lawns and in front yards which he perceived were activities 8 the Council had every right making a statement about. He said he 9 perceived the variance before them that evening addressed some of the 10 same issues. 11 Marks said he could still nothing unusual about the topography of this 12 parcel to justify a variance and he was concerned that by "granting 13 variances willy, nilly" the Council might be weakening the ordinance 14 itself. 15 Sundland's response was that he perceived ordinances weren't intended 16 to be "cast in concrete" either and variances, like conditional use 17 permits , were ways cities had given themselves to flex a little with 18 their constituents who are the people who live in the houses and whose 19 needs may have changed over the years. 20 The Mayor agreed that the courts might be "tough" about some variances, 21 but he continued to believe the City had to have a certain level of 22 flexibility to meet changes in standards and styles of living. He 23 wondered aloud whether some of the laws the City has on its books now,. 24 like the ordinance requiring double garages on all new homes, would be 5 able to withstand a constitutionality challenge in the courts. He said 6 he guessed he was looking at this issue from a different perspective 27 than Marks. 28 The Mayor indicated he was of the opinion that since the City had 29 already granted a variance for the garage alignment, it should be 30 continued with the addition. However, he perceived there was a need for 31 an understanding between the applicant and the City that there will be 32 no future complaints about snow or apartment rental if the Council 33 allows Mr. Tomas to construct the additions he proposes at this time. 34 Makowske reiterated that she perceived from a "common sense point of 35 view" , the Tomas property would look much better with the new addition 36 in alignment with the existing structure and without a long driveway 37 which would just be taking up green space. 38 Marks said he had no argument about the proposal looking better, but 39 still perceived the addition did not qualify for a variance .under the 40 State statutes. This prompted a long philosophical discussion of how 41 much higher governments should be able to dictate to local governing 42 bodies. 43 London inquired whether future expansion of the plumbing business ought 44 to be addressed in the Council 's motion. 0 13