CC PACKET 04142020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

noted he has lived there since 2011 and has never met the owner. The home has always been 1 rented out. If an owner was living there it could be said that it was not solely economic because 2 it will be used by the owner but if the intention is to sell it then how is it not solely economic. 3 4 Councilmember Randle explained the applicant has indicated he plans to buy the home and if his 5 intent is to buy the home then his belief is that the Council follow the Planning Commission’s 6 recommendation. Even if it is solely on economics it is his right to do so. 7 8 Councilmember Jenson stated knowing todays world, two car garages are almost a requirement 9 for most families. Even if this was built in the fifties or sixties, one car garages were normal, and 10 he thought there has been an evolution on how we use transportation. This is a neighborhood 11 that depends on automobiles more so then mass transit. He thought as long as the City can get 12 emergency vehicles in between the two homes safely it is practical to have a two-car garage. 13 14 Councilmember Randle wondered why an emergency vehicle would be needed to fit in between 15 the two homes and he did not see an alley. Councilmember Jenson explained if a fire truck had 16 to drive through the two houses for a fire at the back of the house or maybe the hoses would be 17 drug to the back, he was not sure. 18 19 Mayor Stille did not think it mattered regarding the emergency vehicles because he has seen 20 houses that are closer together and there are ways out there to combat fires rather than bringing a 21 truck onto the property. What he is getting at is this for him is a reasonable use. He 22 acknowledges what Mr. Roth says and he may have some of the same feelings if he lived in Mr. 23 Roth’s house, especially it being that way for a long time but a reasonable use would be having a 24 two car garage in todays day and age and he respected that and the improvement in the City’s 25 housing stock to make sure the City has amenities in as many houses as possible that go along 26 those lines. He did not see that to be a problem and he did drive by the neighborhood a couple 27 times and walked it a couple of times too and he did not see any houses that were ten feet apart 28 but he saw many that were about twelve feet apart and still very close. The theme in the 29 architecture was the same as what the applicant is trying to accomplish with this. 30 31 Mayor Stille thought it was kind of ironic and what kind of swayed him at the Planning 32 Commission is does the City want to force a tandem garage. He thought that is not in character 33 even though a variance is not needed to do it. That is important to him. Thus, the idea of putting 34 a free-standing garage in the back as an accessory building then it would be within the five-foot 35 setback and if he was there, he would have a problem living to the south of that and taking away 36 the view in the back yard. He goes back to reasonableness of having a second stall in the garage 37 and makes sense to him. 38 39 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Randle, to approve Resolution 40 20-023; a Resolution Approving Variance to the side yard setback for construction of a single car 41 garage addition, of a single story in height, with the proposed 5-foot setback at 3404 Roosevelt 42 Street NE with the following conditions: 43 44 A. The applicant is able to verify the setback distance as a part of the building permitting 45 process, based on the existing survey and established lot lines. 46 5