Laserfiche WebLink
• -15- <br /> A majority of the Council perceived the conditions set for granting <br /> • variances had been adequately addressed in the recommendation for approval <br /> of the Thompson variance request. However, Councilman Enrooth was <br /> troubled by the fact that one of the Thompson' s neighbor' s , a Mr. Ella, <br /> that had indicated to him he had not "realized just what. his neighbors <br /> were putting in. " Orville Thompson was present and took exception <br /> to this remark saying "he stood right there with me when Mrs . Makowske <br /> was taking the measurements and commented, in her hearing, that he <br /> couldn' t understand why I would need' any variance for what I was going <br /> to do. " Playor Sundland reported looking .at the property a couple of <br /> times and said he could see no reason why the addition should have an <br /> adverse effect on any of the abutting properties because of the way <br /> . Belden is laid out, . and he certainly agrees that, with the wholesale <br /> florist operation behind him, "there is no'-. way Mr. Thompson can build <br /> on the back. " <br /> Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman.' Ranallo to follow <br /> the Planning Commission recommendation to grant a seven.- foot variance <br /> to the .City Zoning Ordinance requirement that- front yards have setbacks <br /> of 30 feet to permit the construction of a garage addition as proposed <br /> by Orville Thompson which would be 23 feet from the front property line <br /> of Lot 13 , Block 1, Belden. Terrace Second Addition, finding, as did the <br /> Commission, that: <br /> (1) On a curvature of the nature of Belden, the effect of a protruding <br /> addition is less detrimental -to the adjacent property than on a <br /> straight street. <br /> • (2) The addition would not appear to have an adverse impact on their <br /> properties or interfere with the sight line for Mr. Thompson's <br /> neighbors . <br /> (3) No neighbor opposition to the variance was demonstrated -during any <br /> of the hearings on . the proposal. <br /> The Council also finds that: <br /> (4) Because of the siting of the existing Thompson home , there is no,- <br /> way the'.addition -could be built on the back. <br /> Voting on the motion : <br /> Aye : Marks ,- Ranallo, Sundland and Letourneau. <br /> Nay : Enrooth.. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The Commission .report -on the Nelson earth home as well as their meeting <br /> with the Cable T.V. representative were noted with interest. Mr. Childs <br /> later told -the Council the proposed 90 page Cable T.V. ordinance would <br /> be available for them to read in the office. He then reported the light- <br /> • ing which has been such a problem for the Morris shop at 3909 Silver <br /> Lake Road had been permanently removed because there is no .: need for night <br /> lighting when the shop closes at 8 :00 P .M. <br />