Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 11, 1991 <br />DeLonais explained that the reason for the conditional <br />use permit and variance is the extensive rehabilitation <br />that will be necessary in order to bring the property <br />up to Code. <br />Favis reported that she purchased the property for <br />$35,000, therefore, she should be able to put 50% of <br />that figure into the remodeling and rehab of the <br />property. <br />Drabik asked if the house were demolished if another <br />could be constructed. <br />The Planner replied that given the setbacks that would <br />be required, the property would be unbuildable. <br />However, the established setbacks can be used under the <br />conditional use permit for remodeling of the house. <br />The Planner explained that the variance is necessary to <br />allow the cost of remodeling the structure to exceed <br />50% of the assessor's valuation of the property. The <br />assessor's valuation for the property is $9,000. <br />The Planner reported that the Building Inspector's <br />concern is that there is a lot of structural damage, <br />and he would like to see something from an engineer or <br />architect saying that what is done to the building will <br />bring it up to Code. <br />Favis reported that the County will draw up the plans <br />for the rehab of the house. <br />DeLonais pointed out that since a new home cannot be <br />built on the property, the only hope is to rehab the <br />existing house. However, Favis will need to submit <br />plans to satisfy the Building Inspector that the <br />rehabed house will meet Code. <br />The Planner suggested that approval could be <br />conditioned upon submission of plans and drawings that <br />meet the satisfaction of the Building Inspector showing <br />that the building will be structurally sound. <br />Keis asked how long Favis has owned the property and <br />when she purchased it did she know that major <br />improvements were needed. <br />Favis replied that she has owned the property for three <br />years. Favis asked why the Code limited improvements <br />to 50% of the value of the building, or $4,500. Favis <br />stated that she disagreed with that limitation. <br />Pedersen pointed out that without a variance Code <br />Page 7 <br />