PL PACKET 08211984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 ro 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.