CC PACKET 05081990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting April 24, 1990 page 5 1 were made to the plans of which he was not aware. 2 3 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo referred to the ordinance noting that it stipulates 4 a thirty foot setback or equal to the average front yards of the adjacent 5 lots. 6 7 Councilmember Makowske obtained the Code book from 1973 and researched this 8 issue. She concluded that a setback had to be forty feet in depth or the 9 average of the setbacks in adjacent lots. 10 11 Councilmember Marks inquired why setbacks are required. The City Attorney 12 responded that the purpose of setbacks is for lines of site, green spaces, 13 open areas, fire protection, and so people are not building right up to 14 lot lines. 15 16 Councilmember Marks observed that it is not uncommon for cities to have require- 17 ments like these and felt this was a reasonable interpretation of the Code. 18 This requirement would essentially maintain a similar distance from the street 19 even though there are some exceptions such as older homes. 20 21 Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo stated that the City has followed the ordinance except 22 in cases of hardship. An example he gave was the same as the one given by 23 Pirino, that being, the Hance home on Silver Lake which resulted from the 24 stringent requirements imposed on lakeshore property by the Department of • 25 Natural Resources. Councilmember Enrooth recalled the objection from the 26 adjacent neighbor and that it had nothing to do with the placement of the 27 garage and that the dispute was resolved. 28 29 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks that the Council is of the opinion that 30 the ordinance interpretation means thirty feet or equal to the average front 31 yards of the adjacent lots, whichever is greater. 32 33 Motion carried unanimously 34 35 The Council addressed the variance request. Mayor Pro-tem Ranallo inquired 36 if the Pirino's were making this request to increase the value of the 37 house. Pirino advised that this is not the basis of the request but rather 38 to finish the garage. He noted that the project is ninety percent complete 39 and now they were told by a City employee he is not approving the project. 40 41 Councilmember Enrooth inquired what the difference is between Exhibit A and 42 Exhibit B. Pirino responded that Exhibit A involved building from property 43 boundary to property boundary. He decided not to continue with Exhibit A as 44 he chose not to crowd the neighbor on the west. He stated that a tuck under 45 garage was the plan used for the bids and the financing. When it appeared 46 that the tuck under garage would be built beneath the street he began looking 47 for some alternatives. He noted that he was in constant contact with the 48 Public Works Director and based on what Hamer said construction was begun. 49 • 50 Pirino. did not know that the City had no blueprints or drawings regarding