10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OR(»IO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 lONIHG FILE #1586 - JAMES BURANEN CONTINUED placement of the turnaround. Gerhardson stated that it would not have to be cement, that a gravel surface is acceptable. Mabusth added that it would also need to be maintained in the winter. Gerhardson also added that it would need to be an all-weather surface, not just grass. Ms. Reineking asked, "Would we be required to make the turnaround even if we don ’t want the building permit?" Callahan responded that the general feeling of the Council and Engineer is that backing the limousines out onto South Brown Road is not a safe • of exiting. Many times hardcover variances have been g.anted just so that the person will have a space to turnaround safely. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2883, granting the after-the-fact variance, waiving the double fee on the building permit, but also requiring a turnaround to be approved by staff of sufficient size and al’-weather surface to accomodate limousines. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-C, Motion passed. #1587 RUBY SIPORO 96 HACKBERRY BILL AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2884 Mrs. Ruby Siford was present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed this request for an after-the-fact variance regarding a separation between a principal structure and accessory structure for a deck. City Inspectors had noted that there was siding work being done without a permit and put a stop work order on the project. While they were out there, discussion regarding a deck took place. The contractor went ahead and built the deck without a permit after beingj told to stop within 5'. Although the building code only requires a 5' separation, the zoning code requires a 10' separation. Given the fact that the contractor did not come in for a building permit, there was no zoning review. The property owner was not apprised of ail of this by the contractor. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 5' setback. Mabusth noted that Mrs. Siford has not paid the penalty fee yet and she is asking for special consideration of the Council. Mrs. Siford stated that she and her son had discussed putting a firewall in the garage and would put one in the shed. Mabusth stated that there i- a shed that has not been noted on the survey that is not 10' from the existing garage. The Planning Commission has asked in their considerations that the