CCP 02-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ," I. Elannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 12 2/01/95 I Extensive discussion regarding the language for the second motion was held. I Erickson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, a motion to address the rationale for allowing the variances: 1) there has been an established history of single family dwelling use on the I land; 2) circumstances beyond the control of the resident which displaced them from their home; 3) It is reasonable to assume that the City would allow this lot to be used for I residential purposes; 4) It is unlikely the City intends to require the development of the homes in the area to conform to the lakeshore setback regulation; 5) The development of the lot conforms to the generally accepted standard of development abutting the lake; 6) I the intent of the nonconforming use section IX, J of the Zoning Ordinance was written to address issues regarding commercial property or nonconforming use, not residential homeowners. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). I Sand indicated in reviewing Section IX, of the Zoning Ordinance, there are two different concepts: 1) nonconforming use and 2) nonconforming building. Sand indicated the issue is the I nonconforming building, not use and any sub paragraphs regarding use are irrelevant. I- Sand noted A-2 of the Zoning Ordinance notes nonconforming buildings and paragraph B of Section IX indicates if the building is deemed unsafe by the City inspector, it possible the building could be restored. I Sand indicated in reviewing paragraphs I and J, the building would not be augmenting the variances and the applicable requirements of the ordinance could be followed. I Piotrowski noted that perhaps the interpretation of the ordinance by Mr. Filla is not correct and would like Mr. Filla to review the ordinance with those who wrote it. I Sand moved, seconded by Nelson, a motion to address the issue of nonconforming use or building at 1516 Arden Place. Based on fact the issue is a nonconforming building and I property to be reconstructed as in conformity with the ordinance assuming A2, Section IX, I, and J allow reconstruction. I Discussion was held on the definitions of buildings and the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Erickson indicated the motion leaves the applicant with vague. direction. Mr. Fritsinger I indicated legal interpretations will have to be made. The motion carried (5-1), with Chair Erickson opposing. I I- I