CC PACKET 05221990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting April 17 , 1990 Page 9 1 The notification requirements for public hearings were explored with 2 the City Manager advising that if there was any question at all whether 3 that recuirement had been met for this hearing , action should be tabled 4 5 Commission Recommendation 6 7 Motion by tierenicz , seconded by Wagner to table action on the Weiss 8 request until the third Tuesday in Mlay , 1990. _ 9 10 Motion carried unanimously. ✓ice 11 12 The meeting was recessed from 8 : 58 P .M. to 9: 05 P.':,4. when Chairperson 13 Madden read aloud the Notice of Hearing to consider the request from 14 James and Harriet Pirino to allow a 33 foot front yard setback from 15 the average front yard of the two adjacent lots of 53 feet required --y 16 Ordinance. Approval of the petition for the 20 foot variance would 17 allow the applicants to locate the home they had moved into St . Imnthcny 18 facing east on their property at 2917 33rd Avenue N. E. with a garage 19 proposed in the front of the house leaving a front yard -setback of only 20 33 feet. 21 22 The notice had been published in the April 4th Bulletin and sent to AN 23 property owners of record within 300 eet of the subject property. No 24 one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its 25 content . 26 27 Staff Report 28 29 City Manager Burt reiterated much of the information in his April 10th 30 1990 memorandum and gave the timetable of events which had prompted 31 Public Works Director Hamer to issue a stop work order on the constructio 32 of the garage early in March. As noted in his memorandum , Mr. Burt 33 indicated the project was allowed to proceed with the understanding 34 on the part of the applicants that finishing the block work on the garage 35 would be at their own risk and could be ordered out, pending the outcome 36 of the variance request. 37 38 The City Manager reported he had consulted City Attorney Soth regarding 39 the lanquage in the City Ordinance regarding front yard setback require- 40 ments. Mr. Soth agreed that the 1973 Ordinance might be open to intre- 41 pretation which he perceived could be made by the Planning Commission 42 'and Council. A copy of the pertinent section of the ordinance had 43 been provided in the agenda packet. 44 45 The City Manager also indicated he had driven around the City and re- 46 searched the files regarding any non conforming front yard setbacks. 47 This had led him to conclude that except for the homes which were de*y 48 ed by the 1984 tornado and were allowed to be reconstructed on their 49 original foundations as well as those which had been grandfathered in 50 with the adoption of the 1973 Ordinance, there was only one home where