CC PACKET 04241990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting April 17, 1990 Page 13 1 on the front of the Pirino home. 2 3 Mrs. Pirino explained that the home they had moved onto their property 4 had been too wide to fit lengthwise on their 70 foot lot . She indicated 5 she thought facing the house towards Silver Lake Road was more aesthesti- 6 cally pleasing and said turning the house 180 degrees around allowed 7 the maximum distance between adjacent properties . The applicant told 8 Commissioner Faust that when Mrs. Shun had objected to the elevations 9 on the west side , the grade of the garage had been dropped by two course 10 of block. Mrs. Pirino also pointed out that there was an established 11 lilac tree on the east side which would shield the proposed garage doors 12 from view as long as it reamained in that location. She also supported 13 her husband ' s report that the concept which had been presented first to 14 the City had turned out to be too expensive. The proposed garage will be 15 on the same side as the one in Roseville and the "L" shaped driveway 16 was planned to present a more pleasant appearance from the street. The 17 Pirinos plan a brick ledge and plantings around the front to add to that 18 effect. 19 20 The hearing was closed at 9: 57 P. M. for discussion and action by the 21 Commission . 22 23 Commissioner Franzese indicated she still perceived a need for further 24 intrepretation of the intent of the 1973 Ordinance. Mr Burt reiterated 25 that the City Attorney was of the opinion. that such an intrepretation 26 should come. from the Planning Commission and' City Council. The 27 Commissioner insisted the issue was too emotionally charged at 28 this point for her to make a decision without further guide- 29 lines. She viewed this as a 1150/50 issue" on which she was "very torn. " 30. 31 Commissioner Brownell reviewed the language of the ordinance as presented 32 in the agenda packet noting the absence of "the greater of the two" . 33 He said he had to assume that by not stating otherwise the Council who 34 had adopted that language had intended that "the greater of the minimum 35 of 30 feet or the average of the two adjacent lots measured from the front 36 lot line" applied . To the Commissioner this meant a variance would be 37 necessary for the deviation of 32 feet which the proposed garage would 38 have with the adjacent front yard setback. 39 40 Commissioner Hansen agreed that the Council at the time the Ordinance was 41 adopted had no reason to add an additional wordage since they assumed their 42 intent was clear with the language as they left it.. 43 45 Chairperson Madden and Commissioner Werenicz agreed with that assumption. 46 The latter guessed that the reason the language was not expanded farther 47 might have been because the Council at that time was aware that there 48 would be a number of non conforming properties which would be grandfatherec 49 in with the Ordinance. He also pointed out that if the Commissioners 50 looked carefully at those properties they would notice that none of them