Laserfiche WebLink
I9�aunds View Planning Corntt�issio�a <br />1Ze�ular IVIeet�ng <br />Apr°Xl 2, 200� <br />Pa�e b <br />Commissioner Jol�nson said he is not willizzg to risk the City having to pay $75,000 to solve the <br />problem. He then said that in no other cities do they require new developments to match the <br />prevaiIing setbacics. <br />Commissioner Scotch aslced how this happened and thez� said she does not feel the developer or <br />homeowner should pay a penaIty when zt was a City error. <br />Mr. Zwirn commented that this is very similar to the Mezz� <br />issues with that property due to a questionable variance tha <br />Commissioner Johnson commented tl�at in many cases the <br />subjective and he does see a laardship in this case. <br />The Co�ssioners discussed other circu�nstances that <br />allowed. <br />Commissioner Zwirn aslced wl�ether the City <br />Ir�ternational Building Code that even if it is � <br />and whether that is open to interpretation. <br />Director Ericson commented that � <br />He then said that it is probably a d <br />may not warraz�.t doing so. <br />��T <br />them <br />Miller ir <br />�1 ihe cri <br />Direcior Ericson coinn <br />criteria. He then said 1 <br />of time it pro�ably woi <br />hardship for the devel c <br />that;there is a hardship <br />r.v <br />; is open `to znte� <br />position but the <br />operty and theze, axe ongoing <br />�d the development to proceed. ; <br />p; criieria ai•e questionable and <br />ar to this o�e that were <br />at the wording of the <br />he situation rnust be rectified <br />ion when you are an attorney. <br />associated with the litigation <br />�d she felt the Cammission should find that no hardship exists as <br />�re met. She then s�id �hat the Commission is bound by the <br />: Cauncil is not and`she would like to deny the variance and let <br />; Council' could allow it if so desired. <br />that often times there is subjectivity involved with the hardship <br />ed with Commissioner Zwirn that zf tl�is had been asked for ahead <br />�e been denied and aslced wllether the error itself warrants the <br />[e then said that, litigation possibilities not withstanding, he feels <br />nmissioner Hegla��d commented that it is not as simple as whether the Commission would <br />� appraved tlus if aslced for ahead o�time, as the facts are the building is there and it is cost <br />ubitive to move` rt: <br />Qmissioner Zwirn commented that he questions the integrity of this body if it does not make <br />thai the criteria are met when granting variances. <br />Cammissioner Hegland comrnented that justifiable criterion is that the building codes are for <br />new construction and this is reconsiruction and the codes do not necessarily fit. He further <br />'1 <br />, <br />