HomeMy WebLinkAbout8D - Hillcrest Homes Appeal
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
8D
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
CONSIDER APPEAL OF IDLLCREST HOMES
FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER
RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING
NOVEMBER 18, 1996
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
Staff .received a request from Hillcrest Homes to construct
a single family dwelling using setback averaging from the
Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Upon review of the
facts, it became apparent that one of the adjacent lots is
vacant, and thus setback averaging cannot be used.
Hillcrest Homes has appealed this interpretation.
DISCUSSION:
During the summer of 1996, Hillcrest Homes approached
the city regarding setbacks in the R -1 Zoning District and
Shoreland District. The lots in question were Lots 24 and
25 of Fairlawn Shores (common ownership), upon which
was one single family dwelling with the front entry placed
over the common lot line. The applicant was given zoning
information including yard setbacks. The applicant was
informed that setback averaging could be used by
averaging the adjacent structures that were on the adjacent
lots. Setback averaging can still be used, if the applicant
combines Lots 24 and 25 and constructs one dwelling, as
existed prior to the demolition that occurred in late
September 1996.
On September 26, 1996, the applicants received a
demolition permit to remove the existing structure on Lots
24 and 25. Once the building was removed from the
property line, the lots were then put into separate
ownership, as to be developed into two separate single
family dwellings.
On October 11, 1996 the Building Department received an
application for a building permit from Hillcrest Homes for
the construction of a single family dwelling with attached
16200 J!~~IWi~K~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
garage on property located at 5600 Fairlawn Shores Trail
(Lot 24). The proposed structure has a setback from the
Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of 60 feet. The
applicants used setback averaging to determine the
lake shore setback.
Section 9. D (2) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to
placement of structures in the Shoreland District states "On
undeveloped shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots
with existing principal structures on both such adjacent
lots, any new residential structure may be set back from
the average setback of the adjacent structures from the
ordinary high water mark of fifty (50) feet, whichever is
greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland
District are complied with. In no instance shall a
principal structure by located in a shore impact zone or
bluff impact zone."
Upon review by Planning Department, it became apparent
that the adjacent lot to the east was vacant (Lot 25). A
structure on the westerly adjacent lot is setback
approximately 54 feet from the OHWL. Therefore, staff is
of the opinion that setback averaging cannot be used
because at the time of application for a building permit,
there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use
in calculating a setback average.
The Planning Commission has interpreted the zoning
ordinance to allow the applicant to use setback averaging.
The commission felt that the applicant could have used
setback averaging if he would have left the existing
structure on one of the lots (removed the front entry area
only). Their interpretation is that the ordinance does not
specify that averaging be permitted with "adjacent
structures on adjacent lots". Consequently, the Planning
Commission has recommended that setback averaging be
allowed in this case.
ISSUES:
See attached report.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer.
2. Uphold the position of the appellant.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the decision of the zoning officer.
96-106CC.DOC/JKT 2
ACTION REQUIRED:
96-106CC.DOC/JKT
Motion affirming the decision of the, oning officer
Reviewe '
3
October 18, 1996
Mr. Chris Deanovic
Hillcrest Homes
16714 Jaguar Ave.
Lakeville, MN. 55044
Dear Mr. Deanovic:
At our meeting today, we discussed the issue of whether setback averaging could be
applied to the lot you are developing on Fairlawn Shores Trail. I have reviewed this issue
further and I have concluded that, because the original structure is gone and there are not
principal structures existing on both lots abutting the subject property, setback averaging
cannot be applied to the house in question.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council, Such an appeal should be
in writing and directed to my attention. Please call me if you have any questions.
d~'PO
Donald R;l ~
Planning Director
cc: Gary Staber
16200 ~~1S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
HHI
HILLCREST HOMES, INC.
16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
(612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax
OCT 2 2 1996
~ Builder Driven By guaUty Crqt!smanslUp and Value."
October 21, 1996
Donald Rye
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Rye:
At our meeting on Friday, the planning department rejected our proposed use of setback
averagingto determine the rear setback on one of our projects. We wish to appeal this decision
to the City Council based upon the fonowing reasons:
1. Prior to the purchase of this property and the adjoining property, we had numerous
meetings with the planning department going over codes and procedures. The purpose of this
wa~ to ensure that the project was solvent, and that the plans we had would work on these lots
without having to apply for a variance. During these meetings we were informed that setback
averaging could be used to determine the rear setback to the lake. With that information we
preceded to purchase the property and tear down the existing structure. After the structure had
been removed we applied for a building permit on the adjacent lot, and were told at that point that
setba9K averaging could not be used, since there was an empty adjacent lot. Had we beetl
inforij1edthat the original structure on the property had to remain inorder to use setback
aver~~g, we wOll1<lhave removed only the entry way that encroached the adjacentpr~perty and
left ~~~~~mlng~ct;ure. According to the p!anningdepartment this would have ~~en
adeq,~~te. However;.vve acted upon the information provided to us by the City ofPriofI...ake, and
now:6:0.d ourselves in this situation.
2~ The use of setback averaging as we understand is to ensure a cohesive line of@.~
fromt11etake.OtIr goal all along has been to conform to the rest of the homes on the lake, and
ensure continuity with the existing structures on either side. If setback averaging is not used in
this situation it drastically reduces the value of these parcels, as wen as creates a void in the line
of sight from the lake.
As I mentioned during our meeting, we spent a large amount of time prior to purchase and
demolition to ensure we would not run into a situation that we are faced with today. We acted
upon information provided to us by the planning department. We should not be penalized for
Builder License # 20036544. Member a/the Builders Association a/the Twin Cities
acting on this misinformation, especially since we could have acted differently upon the correct
information had it been given, and we would not be in the situation we are today.
I have enclosed a copy of the survey for your review. If you have any questions, or need
additional information please give me a call. I await your reply.
Sincerely,
.' .... ~ .
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A
RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO
SETBACK AVERAGING (Case File #96-0106)
5600 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER~)~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES --X- NO-N/A
OCTOBER 28, 1996
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of
the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake.
The attached letter dated October 18, 1996 was sent in response to a meeting
with Hillcrest Homes regarding the setbacks of a proposed single family dwelling
with attached garage. A letter of appeal was received October 21, 1996 and a
copy is attached.
DISCUSSION:
Section 9. D (2) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to placement of structures in
the Shoreland District states "On undeveloped shoreland lots that have two
(2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent
lots, any new residential structure may be set back from the average
setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark of
fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the
Shoreland District are complied with. In no instance shall a principal
structure by located in a shore impact zone or bluff impact zone."
On October 11, 1996 the Building Department received an application for a
building permit from Hillcrest Homes for the construction of a single family
dwelling with attached garage on property located at 5600 Fairlawn Shores Trail.
The proposed structure has a setback from the Ordinary High Water Level
(OHW) of 60 feet. The applicants used setback averaging to determine the
lakeshore setback.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Upon review by Planning Department, it became apparent that the adjacent lot to
the east was vacant. A structure on the westerly adjacent lot is setback
approximately 54 feet from the OWH. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that
setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a
building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in
calculating a setback average.
Upon consultation with the applicant, the rationale for the proposed reduced
setback became known. This lot and the lot to the east were once under
common ownership. The previous structure was placed such that the residence
was primarily on Lot 25, with the entryway/foyer being located across the
common lot line onto Lot 24, and the garage was on Lot 24. The applicant
demolished the existing structures on both lots earlier this year. Lot 24 and Lot
25 are vacant and currently being developed as two separate lots with proposed
dwellings. The applicant has proposed to use the setback averaging based on
the setback of Lot 23 and the setback of the previously existing structure on Lot
24/25 or by using the setback of Lot 26 (two lots over).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the
ordinance.
2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that
setback averaging using previously-existing structures is in compliance with
City Code provisions.
3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDA TION:
The staff has concluded that at the time of building permit application, Lot 25
was vacant and setback averaging for Lot 24 cannot be used. Staff
recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission.
96086pc.doc
Page 2
SURVEY FROM BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION,
PROPOSED SETBACKS
SURVEY PREPARED FOR
HILLCREST HOMES
16714 JAGUAR AV ENUE
LAKEVILLE, MN 55044
Valley Surveying Co.. PA.
SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIt OF~/Cf CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55377-
TELEPHONE (612)447-2570 .
..~"-_."
~
-r~~' .
; .
I
.. /
;. /
1
I
I
PIY/OIY
c:
? 1-.>)0 ~
~J~
1...4/r'c
j
I
-~I
(n ~
HUB [L
932.27
I
.~
<<00,
"'-
(])~
/J')'II'
--;i},
::;
,.....~ C ~
..._. .....J
r
f G~q^Gr
SLAIl J.e
~936 4J
'-..::-
HUe tl.
933.10
-; ~ !1O)j.
.. '.
.) .: ,'. ':.i .7 /7,1/~'"
, \
\:c /
, ; I
f.W I
u ,
1$/
::~PJ:;! .
s~
r:v
In"
~ue :~,~
935. 27 ~
-..........
,r;---- 7-
. , . --.,..
O"'14Gt."
4 '"
,0 'LA
IS'PINt"
:r: ..vl'lL
953 63
'0' As..
()
~
~~--
954."
.
~
"'5, 10
~/RL..4WJv s
. .--l:!.ORE S
'''. "'R.A
'. '. . '. "ilL
NS,1lJ
.
DE::>CRI P'l'ION :
Lot ;l-l,' 1::^IKI~^',i;', Slkllll~i 1 ~'<.:ott COllnty 1 rliml"sota. Ah:;o ~h(j\-Jir1'J t".he locatiO!' o(
all eXlstlllg lI"pL"ovl'?roont:> Cl~; sUl'vevt>d thin L'th day ot ,1uiYI l<l)l', Lot Area above El, 904.0 -7,336sq.ft.
NUl'E,S' Bt~lL.rhjk.~'j, U,\Ndtiol; J.;/ .t)t1 tq! laut (JL hyeJ. 'it i,',iL:: Li " ,'oj PIIET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE-ze.I"!.
93,?6 iJ..!I,:.:I_'....;. ;<i!.<till(j 'Il'.'lde ,~I"':.lti()1I
~,e"t.~~'b~tdl .how propo.ed.... a.
R~. 71 311 96 ro 5how 101 AAa a dl.'
to 904,0 on adJoi"'nq lot.. '
'''~r~b" e~"''I ,", ,.". uwy WIn ~
by,.". or ur.r' pr "" ..., tup.-viliort fJtItI tfIcr,
I am a duly h('_fnfI Swwror under ",.
~ of "'e S,Gle at M;...,...,.,
" . . ',./"!, ,.fi" " ,
.L- . /... :'. r__ . 'w~J.~"
o
I
SCALE
20
4~ DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
I' _ DENOTES PRQF'OSED DIRECTION Of SURFACE DRAINAGE
Sff PROPOSED GARAG~ SLAB AT ELEVATION 936 lO
SfT PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 936 53
SE'" "'HE LOWEST FLOOR AT ELEVATION 928 34
IN
FEET
o OenClfft /" Inc" . 14 '"eft iron
-...nt Nt fJtItI -*.d by
, ._.... ,"'.. a
SURVEY OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STRUCTURE
AND GARAGE ON LOTS 24 AND 25
SURVEY PIlEPh R ED FOR:
HILLCREST HOM E 5
16714 JhGUl\R AVEtlUE
Lhl<EVI L1_E. MN. 55044
Valfey Surveying Co., P A.
SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TR/l/L
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
"RIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55.372
TEU:"HON€ (G/2 J ..,.. 7 - 2570
()f:::~-';H 11":'1' IN:
Lot: /.~. t.',\/I-:L,\Wtl ,';1I01~1.::~. :;I:r.'t: t: ';Ollllt: j' . ,'1 illl :~:;Ol:il, ^"U th., t
1>-::Il:'t ot l_..~t. ,~u_ vI. Silld (.)1....t l.yi.lI<1 w":ltl!l:'ly OJ: th,! 1.<.'ltowi.II'I
d,~,.o.;l:il~ecl Ii:..':
r.'~1 i 1111 i Ilq "t :.1,..' :"'>')I.J ell"",?:; t t,:r.l y <7orll<! r (' t. :''-' i d l.ut ~'l;; I:I1('nc~
1l.)Ct.l"~"Rt'fl.ll il point: Oil I:!lP 1l('K::I\(~t'iy I ill'! oj: :l:lirJ l.ot
/.1). -.Ii :;1;.'111: I. . ;..) Cw'!t ::outl"":I:'::(~l.1 y o( ::h.., l:<'t-I:I1....~:;t"cl y
CI'("Il'r. 01 :;i\l:! l.ot. .I'.. <lIld I:IH~':0. l:,?crnill'ltill'./. ,\1:0:0 :~hn'...il1'l
ell'! io.::il'.:lOll (.'1. ...ll p.xistiny iJ"'pC'ovI!ra~f1t:; d" :;UC'I"Yi?<! thi"
11th (j"i -.'1 .Iu''', ".""('. Lor ^reo above EL. ~O'l.(): 0,055 sq,r!.
PlY lOR
1.'(
)'/ '.l 90-:, S
"SOG
!...A,f(~
----
.J'!~ . t')';'''c.~'''''c..'''-:C'I
" -\:::-'.~--.
\. ~'~-r
~'j / /
^ tig 'K~~./ 7:
-"~~JO. i'I.r' L ~ -, /
7 J.~ ......0 ('l.- 1I~~'" 7' .
sl4R G.,/;',:~,,. / '/ -f I ",. ::J /
l'( ..;~' -I II '-OV:;{' / 7l r?
<-. -, /"~ <-"f"-,,<--. 1/ ,:f';'-k:~
'-<. '. '<-..../ '<...........<........./;1. I ,i J .
'J J r
j' Ii CI...'S I:
';"p' ~~~L___
jl/
Js'
('0,.,.
! ~"..~4Jn
'--~
"'6902q,
'" 52 -1;-",
'. 21 .y
'. ~I _.......... _ ,.,so 0,
':::,.,; .J. ~.... s""r
.' ;.-'1.-'. ..----~~ ~/,,,t'
./..... _.....~
~~'..:i'E;~' 100':11-:11"10>-11:, ill.ev.1tioll lJ:~) . (,(, tr_'ll ilUl: oL 11,/(1.
;" ;'1
'-J,)~.. ,'l 1~11f)::'(!:; f.~X i!':t i.nq ~JC:H !I? ('11.f!V.~tl:.i un
(
2 (:~
10"", 'f
o
1
f I
11/
""":_.. ,I
,.~~r,\ "
~
- -
-----...._: -.s~9.96rn..
~('. Cl '--N' 0 Plat .Os._.
"J~.,o. ".S~4'
..:.5-l.: l s...., :--:--
"'-------....... 0' I.t :00"".,.
r.('.~ -
~'. ~ -----
'~'./1I
~RlAW '~5."
--..- tv SH
--- ----.J2.R f S
---~
o
{
SCJ\LE
2.0
40
Rtv. 7/31/96 To show 101 ""0 a. dIll.
10 904.0 on odjolninQ 101,.
f h~'tby c,rrily t"'ot t/'i, turWy "'0' Ptlparrd
by"'~ 0' urod~' '"'I dirtf:f ,...,...vi.iOf' oMd !tIol
!Jllll... 0 duly liC'.".rd Lond 5""-,.0' urod... t"t
/117:.0)0' t"t 5~~n :~I""..~OfO.
;::;.' .', /..7;"
,/ 6 ".:,. ~"~/,.. J ,*,
, 'if:'1~~~;"" -.- '.~ ,,_....1".'r..,~...,
~ 6~.... , -J~l<..1i:.'
~ar, - - (,.,t -' L,c",,, !lo. lOll] J
~____-J
IN FEET
o O,not", It'. inCh .14 inCh iron
menu_"t 1ft o"d ",,,,k,d by
L,r.,"" Nr> 10'6 J
. Oe'"n'~~ Iron ""('Inu,,"~n' fourd
"" (\,.",,1... ~.... ,-!,,;, c,..,
Criego:
This will be hard to implement. Agrees with Wuellner in taking too big of a step too
quickly. The initial intent was to decide if a gravel road was impervious. Not ready to
increase to 400/0. The issue is runoff. Why 400/0? Not enough study done to act.
Kuykendall:
The performance criteria are important. Engineering design may be required. It may
cost, but it will control and manage. Give people the alternative to design. There should
be practical ways to show the public.
Stamson:
The benefit would be to get the practices up front. In the future the Commissioners will
be approving variances for hardships and not get the performance criteria. The ordinance
is a pro-active way to get it up front.
Rye felt the performance approach is a combination of specifying what you are trying to
achieve and tell how to achieve it. The DNR applied shoreland rules for the entire State.
They establis.hed the 25% impervious standards to make sure it covered all the bases.
The DNR is concerned for water quality.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECO:rvlMEND APPROVAL OF
DRAFT ORDINANCE 96-XXX CHANGING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DEFINITION
TO INCLUDE GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS. TABLE THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 400/0 FOR IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE.
MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF,
RECOMMENDING STAFF TO COME BACK AT A REASONABLE TIME WITH A
DEFINITION FOR PERFOIUvlANCE CRITERIA.
V ote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Commissioners decided to delay "D" of the public hearings to the end of the
meeting.
6.
New Business:
rnlli&~~
A. Case #96-106 - Appeal of Hillcrest Homes, Inc., for a decision of the Zoning
Officer relating to setback averaging.
Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. On October 11, 1996 the Building Department
received an application for a building permit from Hillcrest Homes for the construction of
a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located at 5600 Fairlawn
Shores Trail. The proposed structure has a setback from the Ordinary High Water Level
MNI02896.DOC
PAGE6
(OHW) of 60 feet. The applicants used setback averaging to determine the lakeshore
setback. Upon review by Planning Department, it became apparent the adjacent lot to
the east was vacant. A structure on the westerly adjacent lot is setback approximately 54
feet from the Ordinany-High-Water. staff is of the opinion setback averaging cannot be
used because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no structure on
the lot adjacent to the east to use in calculating a setback average. Their recommendation
to City Council is to uphold staff s interpretation of the ordinance.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes, recapped meetings with the planning department and
discussed their proposals to avoid variances. Hillcrest was unaware of setback averaging.
They are trying to comply with the rest of the neighborhood and would like to average
with the former house on the lot (Lot 25) and the house on Lot 23 or the existing house
on Lot 26. The two lots are in separate ownership.
Criego:
. The demolition permits are run through the building department.
. Rye said when staff looked at it initially, basically there were three structures with
setbacks of approximately 50 feet. The possibility one of the houses would suddenly
disappear in the middle of this and affect the setback averaging provision did not
occur to staff.
. Honest oversight on everyone's part. Should not punish the developer.
. Go ahead and recommend to City Council to accept the development.
. Ordinance states they are buildable lots.
V onhof:
. Agrees.
Kuykendall:
. Concurs with what was said but has reservations.
. Increased the impervious surface because of a loop hole.
. The size of the adjacent lots are unknown.
. We need to reassess anytime someone takes down a structure and changes the
impervious surface.
Rye spoke of the ordinance provision addressing this issue which was removed by City
Council. The Commissioners have to deal with the issue in front of them.
Jim Albers felt if the lots were combined the impervious surface and setbacks would be
the same.
Wuellner:
. Questioned dimensions on home.
PAGE7
MN102896.DOC
Stamson:
. Hillcrest owned both lots at the time of the demolition.
. Albers explained the demolition permit and then the building permit process.
. Tovar spoke on the ownership and lot split before the demolition.
. Regrettable it happened but the ordinance is specific. This is variance criteria.
. It is our obligation to enforce the ordinance as written.
There was a short discussion on the interpretation of the ordinance.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL FINDING SETBACK AVERAGING WITH PREVIOUS
EXISTING STRUCTURES IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE PROVISIONS.
V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego.
MOTION PASSED.
B. Case #96-105 - Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision of the Zoning Officer
relating to setback averaging.
Jenni Tovar presented the staff report stating the following: On June 10, 1996 the
Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard
setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning
Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet
from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from
the property line).
On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and
Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of
Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake Road (adjacent to Dave
Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance
to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from
property line).
Dave Smith noticed Pavek's house being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his
proposed garage addition. He approached the Planning Department requesting
permission to move his garage addition closer to the street.
The Planning Department has affirmed setback averaging cannot be done if one or both
of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this
case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a
permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the
permit are considered. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning
Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback would be. The Planning
Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code,
MNI02S96.DOC
PAGES