PL PACKET 08162005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 10 1 He stated that the rest are issues that they could move forward with noting that they way it is 2 addressed and how the language would be defined is something that does need to be worked on. 3 4 Commissioner Jensen stated that he has some questions on the 50-percent damage in a non- 5 conformity issue noting that it is not very well defined as to who makes the call on the 50- 6 percent. He indicated that some want to administer it based on what the Assessor says noting 7 that most people that this is intended to benefit for would see it on their tax statement, which 8 combines the lot,the property and what the property is being insured for. He expressed concerns 9 stating that they do not want to discover that the Assessor has a value in his file cabinet that is 10 $50,000 less than what they are being taxed for. He stated that he wants to be careful that if they 11 are allowing something to be built that it qualifies under reasonable standards. 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that there have been some changes noting that the 50-percent is one of 14 the changes. She explained that if it was destroyed to a certain degree and the owner wants to 15 continue it, it would be allowed to unless it hasn't been used for a year or more, then it would not 16 be allowed to continue. She stated that if they completely removed the building that creates the 17 non-conformity then it would not be renewed. 18 19 Chair Stromgren clarified that it reads 50-percent and no permit applied for within 180 days. 20 21 Commissioner Jensen clarified that his concern with the 50-percent,based on building codes and 22 other things, is that there is a discrepancy because of the limited market value and the assessor's 23 market value deals with structure, land and land improvements. 24 25 Chair Stromgren clarified that the 50-percent comes into play if they don't act on a permit in six 26 months. He stated that it is protecting the City's interest not to have a detrimental property 27 sitting unused for an extended period of time. 28 29 Ms. Moore-Sykes introduced Ramona Steadman, 2909 30''Avenue Northeast stating that she has 30 some questions regarding egress window/side yard requirements to be five feet between the 31 house and the property line. She noted that she has dealt with this issue several times with 32 residents who want to make improvements to their property but require an egress window for 33 safety purposes. She explained that most do not want an egress window in the front as it detracts 34 from the view of the front yard. She noted that the back yard is not always convenient adding 35 that the side yard area appears to be the most convenient location for an egress window. She 36 explained that the ordinances states that there be a minimum of five feet between the building 37 and property line for the side yard and has to be a total of 15-feet for both side yards and some of 38 the residents only have five feet on the side where they want the egress yet they can't encroach 39 into the setback. 40 41 Chair Stromgren clarified that the interpretation so far is that the window well is an 42 encroachment in the setback and is not allowed. 43 44 Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed stating that is not allowed. She noted that the ordinance does allow 45 an encroachment for stoops, eaves and other structures into the five-foot setback on the side yard