PL PACKET 10181983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Bjorklund said he wanted the request to be voted on that evening notwithstanding the absence of the petitioners . He indicated he would oppose the request because he perceives -the addition would protrude too far onto that. corner and could be expected to encroach • on a driver's view turning-- the corner. - The .Commissioner. said he. was personally . acquainted with., that home and contended that a dining,,room could easily be built elsewhere in the house. Commissioner. Bowerman reiterated that. he sees a lot' of time being wasted during Commission meetin'gs' and it was his intention to. attempt to set up- more efficient ,procee.dings for• future meetings . His . comment was that the Commission's purpose is only to advise the Council on these requests. Motion -by- Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner. Bjorklund to recommend Council. denial .:of the ,petition from Donald and .Betty Lou, Evertz for a variance to the City Ordinance requirements for• bui,ld'ing setback lines which would permit them to make a 10 foot X 10 foot . addition to the west side of the existing structure at 2901 -St. -Anthony Boulevard because no one had appeared at the hearing to present. the petition and the Commission- believes. they had insufficient information for making any other decision. City Manager Childs recommended thst the matter be tabled instead, because he was not certain whether staff had indicated to the applicant that they needed to attend the hearing. Because of this uncertainty, he felt they should get .the benefit of the doubt. In addition, steps would be taken to assure that such confusion would not occur in the future. Commissioner Bjorklund ' called the question. Voting on whether to cut off further discussion: Aye: Bjorklund and Bowerman. Nay : - Makowske, Wagner, and Franzese . Motion not carried. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he didn ' t like the idea of addressing all the hardships for the applicant so they could be changed before the matter is taken to the Council. Commissioner Bowerman repeated he was primarily interested in speeding up the Commission proceedings but doubted the Commission could have made any other: decision on what. he perceived to be a nebulous plan to- say the least with a sketch which was not drawn to scale, so the Commission could determine what the proposed .addition's relationship would be to the existing garage on the property. He added he had visited the site and -had' difficulty determining just what the exact setbacks would be on that curved street. Commissioner Wagner wondered. if the applicants had not attempted- to address the hardships in the: note they had written on the back of the application and,'he was- still• concerned, that the petitioners had not been specifically advised that they must attend the hearing. 'Commissioner' Frarizese- inddated•' she perceives- the Evertz ' had.- earned the right to have their proposal .given Commission consideration when they had paid the. application fee . She said the uncertainty whether or not the petitioners had•'understood they were obliged to be present for the hearing and the fact that there is no such statement on the application form made her believe they- should have the right to have the Commission answer their petition one way or another.