Laserfiche WebLink
1 rebuild them as residential homes but the Plan seemed to be saying <br /> 02 another non-conforming business on the same intersection could be <br /> 3 rebuilt to commercial rather than reverting to its R-1 status. Mr. <br /> 4 Lutgen said he thought the City "was giving out a mixed signal of what <br /> 5 we really want to do in St. Anthony" . The zoning change opponent <br /> 6 said he would also be concerned about the owners of the vacant property- <br /> 7 on the other corners coming in to request the same treatment for those <br /> 8 locations. <br /> 9 Later . in the discussions, Mr. Lutgen indicated he thought the" 75%" <br /> 10 figure for damage was far too liberal considering that the average <br /> 11 figure used by other communities was only 1150%11 . <br /> 12 Chair Wagner pointed out to Mr. Lutgen that the florist businesses <br /> 13 which had been destroyed were "Commercial" while the zoning <br /> 14 classification for this parcel was "Limited Service Office" . <br /> 15 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Hansen the two florists were not allowed <br /> 16 to rebuild because they had been specifically signalled out in the <br /> 1.7 ordinance as non-conforming uses which could not be either expanded or <br /> 18 rebuilt. He added that the vacant corners are already designated as <br /> 19 "single family residential" on the same Comprehensive Plan which <br /> 20 denotes Dr. Osterbauer's location as "service-office" . The Manager told <br /> 21 Commissioner Werenicz that Dr. Osterbauer would have to apply for a <br /> 22 zoning change before he could put any type of "commercial" on that <br /> 23 corner and said there are no "use variances" allowed by the City <br /> 24 Ordinance. <br /> 05 Douglas Bulthaus 3309 Edward Street N.E. , "almost across the street from <br /> 26 the dentist office" , told the Commissioners he had "absolutely no <br /> 27 objections with the present facility" , which he "would much prefer to . <br /> 28 a vacant lot. " His concern was also with the precedent which was going <br /> 29 to be set and what was going to happen in that neighborhood ten or . <br /> 30 twenty years from now. His fear was that if the zoning were changed <br /> 31 someone could either rebuild the structure after a disaster or just tear <br /> 32 the existing building down and alter it to the extent it could "change <br /> 33 the context of at least that part of the neighborhood." The neighbor <br /> 34 indicated he would be only "too glad" to testify in favor of Dr. <br /> 35 Osterbauer's rebuilding after a fire as long as the building didn't <br /> 36 change drastically but his concern was with retaining the same type of <br /> 37 neighborhood farther down the lane because "I don't plan on moving or <br /> 38 building another house. !' He termed his statement as more of a "concern <br /> 39 about architectural changes" than an "objection" . The resident said <br /> 40 he lived next door to Pat Peterson and had the same type of concerns <br /> 41 as had been stated to the office staff. Mr. Bulthaus then agreed with <br /> 42 Chair Wagner's observation that there could also be architectural <br /> 43 changes in a single family residence he might not like, but said his <br /> 44 concerns were more related to a change in use. He said he perceived <br /> 45 realty offices and attorneys offices might be built to look more <br /> 46 "commercial" than the existing building. He reiterated that he didn't <br /> 47 think there was a single resident on that street who wouldn't want the <br /> • 5 <br />