CC MINUTES 07241984 - 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, in • 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-'wou_ld-_ 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 h_ any projection with_ n"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.