PL AGENDA 09201988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 rebuild them as residential homes but the Plan seemed to be saying another non-conforming business on the same intersection could be rebuilt to commercial rather than reverting to its R-1 status. rl r- 4 Lutgen said he thought the City "was giving out a mixed signal of what 5 we really want to do in St. Anthony" . The zoning change opponent 6 said he would also be concerned about the owners of the vacant property 7 on the other corners coming in to request the same treatment for those 8 locations. 9 Later in the discussions, Mr. Lutgen indicated he thought the" 75%" 10 figure for damage was far too liberal considering that the average 11 figure used by other communities was only 1150%11 . 12 Chair Wagner pointed out to Mr. Lutgen that the florist businesses 13 which had been destroyed were "Commercial" while the zoning 14 classification for this parcel was "Limited Service Office" . 15 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Hansen the two florists were not allowed 16 to rebuild because they had been specifically signalled out in the 17 ordinance as non-conforming uses which could not be either expanded or 18 rebuilt. He added that the vacant corners are already designated as 19 "single family residential" on the same Comprehensive Plan which 20 denotes Dr. Osterbauer's location as "service-office" . The Manager told 21 Commissioner Werenicz that Dr. Osterbauer would have to apply for a 22 zoning change before he could put any type of "commercial" on that 23 corner and said there are no "use variances" allowed by the City 24 Ordinance. Douglas Bulthaus 3309 Edward Street N.E. , "almost across the street from 26 the dentist office" , told the Commissioners he had "absolutely no 27 objections with the present facility" , which he "would much prefer to 28 a vacant lot. " His concern was also with the precedent which was going 29 to be set and what was going to happen in that neighborhood ten or 30 twenty years from now. His fear was that . if the zoning were changed 31 someone could either rebuild the structure after a disaster or just tear 32 the existing building down and alter it to the extent it could "change 33 the context of at least that part of the neighborhood." The neighbor 34 indicated he would be only "too glad" to testify in favor of Dr. 35 Osterbauer's rebuilding after a fire as long as the building didn't 36 change drastically but his concern was with retaining the same type of 37 neighborhood farther down the lane because "I don't plan on moving or 38 building another house. " He termed his statement as more of a "concern 39 about architectural changes" than an "objection" . The resident said 40 he lived next door to Pat Peterson and had the same type of concerns 41 as had been stated to the office staff. Mr. Bulthaus then agreed with 42 Chair Wagner's observation that there could also be architectural 43 changes in a single family residence he might not like, but said his 44 concerns were more related to a change in use. He said he perceived 45 realty offices and attorneys offices might be built to look more 46 "commercial" than the existing building. He reiterated that he didn't 47 think there was a single resident on that street who wouldn't want the i 5