Laserfiche WebLink
1 Sundland responded to the Commissioner's concern about preventing <br /> 2 further expansion of what business activities might be carried on in the • <br /> 3 Tomas home by telling him that after the Commission and Council had <br /> 4 grappled with the issues of businesses in homes for a long time, the <br /> 5 City Attorney had advised them not to get too involved in writing <br /> 6 ordinances about businesses which didn't generate a lot of outside <br /> 7 traffic to a neighborhood. The legal adviser had indicated businesses <br /> 8 )like beauty shops in homes were the types of businesses the City could <br /> 9 disallow, but there might be a lot of difficulties involved in trying <br /> 10 to distinguish the differences between workers who all left and <br /> it -returned to their homes via whatever form of transportation worked best <br /> 12 for them personally. <br /> 13 Nicole Tomas gave the last testimony in favor of the variances. She <br /> 14 reminded those present that when someone at the hearing had complained <br /> 15 about "too many people" they were talking about members of her family. <br /> 16 She also said "hopefully some of the vehicles can be parked in the new <br /> 17 garage addition. " <br /> 18 Makowske - indicated she could still not accept Councilmember Marks' <br /> 19 conclusions about what constituted a "hardship" and reiterated her <br /> 20 reasoning in the following: <br /> 21 Council Action <br /> 22 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Enrooth to grant the request from <br /> 23 Eugene B. Tomas, 4029 Penrod Lane N.E. , for a variance from the setback <br /> 24 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 32 foot X 24 foot <br /> 25 addition to the east side of the existing garage which would be 11 feet <br /> 26 from the Silver Lane property line as well as the variance necessary <br /> 27 for the proposed second floor addition to the existing garage. <br /> 28 In granting these variances, the Council finds that: <br /> 29 1. The three conditions required by statute are met in the <br /> 30 affirmative because it appears the physical surroundings, including the <br /> . 31 patio and yard area, would best be served by the proposed extension of <br /> 32 the garage as proposed. <br /> 33 2. In light of recent ordinance changes in which the City was <br /> 34 trying to discourage outdoor parking, it seems logical for the Council <br /> 35 to grant a variance now which provides more indoor parking for this <br /> 36 parcel . <br /> 37 3 . The variance to allow an 11 foot setback from the Silver Lane <br /> 38 property line where the City Ordinance requires 30 feet is perceived as <br /> 39 only an extension of a variance which was granted for the property <br /> 40 when it was first built. <br /> 41 4. The applicant understands that he can't park any of his vehicles <br /> 42 on the City boulevard and that the City Zoning Ordinance forbids his <br /> 14 • <br />