CC PACKET 04241990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting April 17 , 1990 Page 10 1 a precedent had been set for allowing a non conforming front yard setback. 2 This was the Hance home on Silver Lake where a variance was granted for 3 a garage on the front of the house which did not meet the ordinance re- 4 quirements . In that case the variance was granted on the basis of the 5 hardship posed by the DNR setback requirements for lake front property 6 as well as the fact that the Hance garage was set back 3 feet farther 7 than the garage it was replacing . 8 9 Mr. Burt also reiterated that the single car garage indicated on the 10 plans on which the original building permit was issued would meet the 11 side yard requirements of the Ordinance. He also drew attention to the 12 fact that an existing long driveway on the site could provide access to 13 a garage in the rear. 14 15 The plans for the non-conforming garage in Exhibit were only presented to 16 the City March 23rd when the applicants were requested to meet with the 17 City Manager in his office . He explained that teh stop work order was only 18 lifted in compliance with the applicants ' request to be allowed to proceed 19 with the grading so as to get into their home by Easter . 20 21 Mr. Burt reported there had been several calls to the City Offices 22 inquiring about the project but no count had been kept because the callers 23 had indicated they intended to come to the hearing anyway. 24 25 The public hearing was opened at 9 : 12 P. M. 26 27 Mr. Pirino admitted it had been "an oversignt on our part not to have kept 28 the City informed as the changes we made in the ' concept drawing ' submitted 29 when the building permit was requested. Mrs. Pirino explained that the 30 project had moved along at such a fast pace after they bought the home in 31 Roseville, that although they had tried to keep their neighbors informed 32 as to the changes they were making they had not done a go�cl job of it She 33 also indicated they were prevented from doing so for the McNultys who live 34 east of them because the couple was gone for five weeks . 35 36 However, Mr. Pirino insisted that he had numerous discussions with Mr. 37 Hamer who he thought knew what they were doing. The applicant also 38 contended that the foundation plans had been approved by the City at three 39 different stages and that the step footings had passed inspection before 40 the house was moved. He added that at no time during this process had he 41 been advised to :cet an attorney ' s opinion" Mr. Pirino said that if he 42 had known the City was going to protest the siting of the garage he could 43 have "pushed the whole house 20 feet farther to the rear . " However, doing 44 so would have cut off more of his neighbor ' s to the east air and view. 45 46 The applicants reported they had never had blueprints drawn up for the 47 siting illustrated in the cocept drawing because that plan was considered 48 not feasible right at the start . Blueprints for a tuck under garage were 49 drwan up in January but a survey of the site indicated drainage problems 50 which caused them to discard those plans and have blueprints drawn up