CCP 02-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . I. "0' j Plannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 11 2/01/95 I Chair Erickson inquired if with allowing the variances, is the Commission changing the property I to conforming. Mt. Fritsinger indicated this is essentially correct, but with the building being demolished new problems arise with the ordinance. I Carlson inquired if the Commission could approve the variances and make a second motion regarding the nonconformity issue. Mr. Fritsinger was concerned with setting a precedent, and I indicated the time frame is uncertain as to how long it would take to resolve issues regarding the ordinance. He indicated the only criteria they have to go by is residential versus commercial. I Sand inquired as to the opinion of City Attorney Filla. Mr. Fritsinger indicated Mr. Filla would deny the variances based on the technical aspects of the ordinance. Mr. Filla noted there may be possible cause for the variances, if under the conditions to grant a variance reasonable use issues I were adequately addressed. Carlson inquired of the applicant how long it would take to rebuild. The engineer for the I applicant indicated 95 to 110 days. ,- Carlson indicated if the variances would be approved, the issue would be before Council on February 27. If the issue was tabled, the earliest the Council would be able to review the case would be the end of March. I Chair Erickson indicated the only way to approve the variances tonight is to add language regarding residential property. I Mr. Fritsinger indicawd Staff has reviewed various options to this dilemma and due to the demolishing of the building the nonconforming use ordinance then takes precedent. I Sand indicated Section IX paragraph B, states if the property is declared unsafe by the City inspector it would allow the City to move in favor of restoration. I Chair Erickson indicated the problem is the entire nonconforming use section of the ordinance has to be reviewed and applied. I Piotrowski indicated the Commission can not deny the applicant reasonable use of his land. I Carlson moved, seconded by Sand, a motion to approve the variances requested in Case #95-6. The location of the salvaged deck and previous house footprint, along with the proposed new additions will establish setbacks at 1516 Arden Place. Any proposed future I expansions beyond the limits described previously will require additional variances. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). I- I