08-28-1996 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission August 8, 1996 occupation issue would have been a matter of whether it complies with the City's permitted home occupation requirements which are theoretically unrelated to the Planning Commission. However, home occupation activities are not to be occurring in an accessory building. Grittman felt that the Building Official was concerned that the building was going to be used for the business use out of the home which is not allowed under the home occupation ordinance. Knudsen stated that Thorp has indicated that a workshop and storage will be in the shed, and the lawn service will go somewhere else. Therefore, the Planning Commission should just act on the variance. Grittman stated that the permit for the special home occupation that Thorp will be applying for will come before the Planning Commission at a later date. Keis commented that the Planning Commission can act on the variance tonight as long as they are under the assumption that the accessory building will not be used for the business. Keis indicated that there is a slab already in place and so the shed is fairly permanent right now even though it is not quite finished. Knudsen also felt that the option of moving the structure is very inconvenient since it would put the shed in the middle of the backyard. Keis felt that anyone could have that problem. Thorp stated that he would not have built the shed if he had been told about the setback requirements. Keis stated that the shed is there, it was put there in good faith, and Thorp has invested money into it. Grittman stated that the City has offered to pour a new slab and relocate the building on the new slab. He stated that he is presuming that the cost of the materials and labor would be compensated. His understanding of the City's offer was that Thorp would not be out any money for the move. Keis commented that the Planning Commission cannot promise anything since that would be a Council issue. Keis stated that the other issue is how much of a variance is this and is it worth saving the City money by saying we will accept this mistake and go on. Knudsen asked if the shed could be left in violation. Grittman said that the Planning Commission could grant a variance for the setback violation, but they would have to identify the reasons why approval would be appropriate. However, he stated that the strict position of the ordinance standards indicated that it would have to be a non - financial hardship. Grittman stated that if the Planning Commission feels that Page 44