Laserfiche WebLink
.air°-= f • <br /> CITY OF.`S.T..'...ANTHONY <br /> - FOR CY' IOUNC3REQEIEST 1 . ACTION <br /> Date Submitted Type of Act,i°,on`:-Reques`ted Agenda Item Number <br /> Resolution <br /> 'Reports-1c <br /> 7/18/84 Ordinance <br /> Date Action Requested X Formal..-Action/Motion Title Variance Request, <br /> Other (ordinance i nterpretat i on <br /> 7/24/84 Ruth Smith, 3334 Edward <br /> Street N.E. <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br /> TO: Mayor and Councilmen <br /> FROM: David M. Childs , City Manager <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br /> SUMMARY DISCUSSION OF SUBJECT: Ruth Smith's home was destroyed by the tornado. <br /> She proposes to build a new home with an attached garage. to replace her previous <br /> smaller home which had a detached garage. The new home would face 34th Avenue rather <br /> than Edward Street, which then presents a setback problem if the lot front is con- <br /> sidered to be on 34th. Other communities I have worked in used a rule of thumb, or <br /> had an ordinance provision which stated that "on -a -corner lot, the required front <br /> yard is considered to be the shorter of the two _s:t.ree.t�f rontages.". This avoided <br /> setback problems which Ruth Smith is exper<i enc i-ng-.:,WHFj a maintaining adequate open <br /> space as intended by the ordinance. This mean-s -Aha't -i.t doesn ' t matter where the <br /> front door is for setback purposes , the lo't'l-firon't.-i:.-s-'.>t-tie short side. With this in- <br /> terpretation, no variance would be necessa-r.y.. � <br /> RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission concurs w;i.th::my recommendation and unani - <br /> mously recommends that the Council interpret Mrs . Smith 's front yard to be on <br /> Edward Street even though her front door and street address will be on 34th. Thus , <br /> a variance is not required . <br /> CITY_ MANAGER' S REVIEW: COMMENTS : <br />