Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 12, 1995 <br />this house will have on property values. Sommer <br />expressed this same concern. Remerowski stated that he <br />would be able to substantiate that property values <br />would be reduced if this house is moved in. <br />Al Graf pointed out that the issue would not even be <br />before the Commission if the house were new <br />construction. Graf reported that with the addition and <br />new siding the house will not appear to be 40 years <br />old. <br />Remerowski stated that his concern was his property <br />value and his resale value. Remerowski stated that the <br />house does not fit into the neighborhood even with the <br />planned addition. Remerowski stated that if the house <br />were new construction in the $80,000 range, the <br />property owners in the neighborhood would have no <br />problem. <br />Al Graf again stated that the house will not look any <br />different if it were new construction. <br />Remerowski pointed out that the proposal is to bring in <br />a 50 year old house. <br />Garske pointed out that one of the CUP evaluation <br />criteria addresses depreciation of values of the area. <br />The City Planner reported that that provision is <br />difficult to apply in this instance because the very <br />thing being proposed is allowed by Code. Therefore, it <br />is a tough area to regulate from that standpoint. To <br />lay claim that values would be depreciated, there must <br />be substantiation of the numbers. <br />Garske pointed out that there is no garage proposed. <br />The City Planner replied that the Code does not require <br />a garage, just the ability to construct one. <br />Keis asked if the addition had to match the rest of the <br />structure. <br />The City Planner replied that there is no Code <br />requirement for that. <br />Garske asked if the City Planner was saying that there <br />was no basis to deny the CUP request. <br />8 <br />Page 105 <br />