CC PACKET 08141984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- -ultimately be made- by- the City Council . He went on to further . state that the -real issue as far as the City Council..is . concerned,- is what,. i their opinion, did .the. Council mean when that .section of the Ordinance, .*, was- approved. Regarding the dictionary.- definition of the word. bay,. that definition may be taken into account, but the Council ' s decision: should not be based . solely . on that., the •Attorney added. Mr. Soth, when .speaking on this specific request, said the issue appears to be that the addition would be larger than usual, yet it is within the parameters outlined in the Ordinance. Of relevance are the facts that the proposed addition is cantilevered, is a projection from the base building, and the, roof line will not be altered. , The main argument by the opposition is that the addition is too large to be a bay and it is not curved, the City Attorney noted. Councilman Enrooth reiterated the City Attorney 's opinion that the Council must decide what was intended by the Ordinance makers ,. in that no size limitations or specific definitions are outlined in the Ordinance. The City Attorney noted that in this case windows are proposed to be installed in the bay , however, they are not necessary to constitute a bay. He reiterated the Council ' s decision rests on whether this design would constitute a bay as intended in the City Ordinance . Mr. Root asked Mrs . DeKanick if the bay would extend into the porch addition, whereupon Mrs . DeKanick indicated they propose to extend the back wall 2 feet. Mr. Root also asked if the DeKanick' s could install an awning on the window of the bay in the future because the sun is a hardship . The Mayor pointed out that that would make the projection closer than 3 feet from the property line , and thus would not be allowed. The City Attorney said the Ordinance does not specifically address awnings in that section, but agreed with the Mayor that Ordinance inten- tion is not to have any projection within 3 feet of the property line . He suggested that in the future, the Council may desire a more specific definition in the Ordinance, but for this case they must decide in their own minds what their interpretation will be . Councilman Enrooth asked exactly what constitutes an encroachment. Mr. Soth indicated that in legal terms an encroachment is something which extends across a property line. He emphasized the word, in this case, should be taken into context and "encroachment" is actually an extension. As such, "encroachment" has no significance in this case . . Mr. Root inquired if it would be the proper time for him to ask if he could erect a privacy fence on the property line. In response, Mayor -;-Sundland told Mr. Root he could obtain .a permit to build a six foot privacy fence, if he so desired. The Mayor also indicated he did not , feel - the applicant would need. a variance because the definition of a , bay -in relation to the City. Ordinance would be met. Councilman Makowske felt -that that is the correct interpretation--by the. 'Council in that the Ordinance .-does not define sizes , . the ,request.,will not change the roof line -and the proposed addition will not extend into the yard. She noted, too, that the DeKanick ' s or any subsequent owner should not be allowed to -add an overhang in . the future.