My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 05242005
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC MINUTES 05242005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 11:08:57 AM
Creation date
8/25/2016 10:54:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 24, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />1 Planning Commissioner Victoria Young said the variance was for the construction of a 120 <br />2 square foot deck on the back of their home. The hardship on this lot is that the house is set deep <br />3 on the lot with a deep driveway. In order to build their proposed deck and comply with the <br />4 City's lot coverage requirements, they would have to move their garage forward 10 feet. This <br />5 would put the garage up against the house and seems a bit unreasonable. However, the property <br />6 file shows the hardship was not created by the property owners, but rather as the result of the <br />7 original codification of the City's Zoning Ordinance which occurred in 1976. She noted that <br />8 both petitioners were available at the Planning Commission meeting and answered all questions. <br />9 The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. The intended deck is planned <br />10 to be made of some artificial wood material with bushes under it, and rock. She asked if that <br />11 would count toward the impervious surface of the site, noting it is already a legal nonconforming <br />12 site. <br />13 <br />14 Councilmember Stille stated with regard to the 120 square feet, and as long as a deck has slats <br />15 and can drain, and there is no new net surface, yes it would. <br />16 <br />17 The applicant said this is part of a three -year process of improving the home. There is a large <br />18 French door to the backyard, and it was anticipated to put the deck on this year. This is why he <br />19 did not pull a permit to put the deck on last year. <br />20 <br />21 Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Thuesen, to approve Resolution <br />22 05 -042 re: A Resolution Approving the Lot Coverage Variance for the Property Located at 3217 <br />23 31't Avenue NE. <br />24 <br />25 Councilmember Stille requested the consideration of replacing the third finding, or eliminating it. <br />26 If the people were living in the house prior to 1976, then the City creates the hardship. New <br />27 buyers after 1976 are aware of the Ordinance and buying the house knowingly so. The City may <br />28 not have created this hardship. He said he did not want to get in the habit of using the date of <br />29 codifying as an excuse for such requests. <br />30 <br />31 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, seconded by Councilmember Stille to approve Resolution <br />32 05 -042 re: A Resolution Approving the Lot Coverage Variance for the Property Located at 3217 <br />33 31" Avenue NE with the removal of the third finding on the Resolution. <br />34 <br />35 Motion carried unanimously. <br />36 <br />37 B. Resolution 05 -43; A text amendment change to the Ordinance to allow cemeteries and <br />38 funeral homes in Zoning District R -1 as a conditional use. <br />39 Commissioner Young explained this resolution is regarding a text amendment. The request is to <br />40 add the words "funeral home" to Section 1605.01 of Chapter 16; and to change the permitted <br />41 uses to "cemeteries, mausoleums, crypts, vaults, and columbarium" within an R -1 District. She <br />42 summarized the background of the request and noted that Sunset Memorial Park is a legal non- <br />43 conforming use in the R -1 Zoning District. The ultimate request of this process was to build a <br />44 funeral home on this site. There was a request to change to a Recreational /Open Space site <br />45 earlier this year. Many people attended the public hearing and those who spoke cited <br />46 unanimously to disapprove this change. She explained the Planning Commission discussed the <br />47 issue, and some of the questions that were raised included: should a funeral home be allowed on <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.