Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 28, 1991 <br />5calze suggested that the Planning Commission may be <br />more in favor of the new plan pointing out that it <br />shows the parking. <br />McBride reviewed the Planning Commission's action on <br />the proposal, which was for approval subject to <br />approval of the Building Inspector and upgrading of the <br />outside appearance of the structure. <br />The Planner reported that the Code is set up to give <br />the Council the authority to correct the situation <br />where there is a substantially non-conforming <br />structure, and strict interpretation of the hardship <br />criteria for variances does not justify the variance. <br />Aowever, denial will result in an empty lot, and over <br />several years the same circumstances would extend to <br />other properties in the area. Otherwise, the variance <br />is approved and the City hopes it ends up with a <br />habitable structure, and the same variance process <br />would eventually extend to other properties in the <br />area. <br />Aanson pointed out that even with an empty lot, taxes <br />would continue to be levied on the property. <br />Scalze pointed out that other properties in the area <br />have been redone and appear that they will remain for a <br />long time. Scalze stated that what troubles her is the <br />City's sayinq no to the request if the end product will <br />result in a structure similar to the others in the <br />area. <br />Hanson felt the structure as it exists is detrimental <br />to the other's in the area. <br />Scalze agreed and pointed out that in this case the <br />variance would be an enhancement to the other <br />properties in the area, where in most variance requests <br />this is not the case. <br />LaValle suggested that if we grant a variance here, <br />larger variances may be requested by other property <br />owners. LaValle also pointed out that there is <br />commercial property across the street, and there are <br />plans for the upgrading of this commercial property. <br />The Planner noted that the applicant is not proposing <br />to change the front or backyard setbacks in this <br />instance. <br />McBride reported on an error in placement of the <br />neighbor's property irons that would result in an <br />additional four feet of property for the Favis lot. <br />However, placement of the garage was based on the <br />neighbor's monuments. McBride reported that they <br />Page 5 <br />