1996-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 4 Public Hearin~. continued Benke and Williams suggested that a non-conforming use permit could remediate the situation. Mattila feels that because the use is permitted in the district, but the unit exceeds the FAR, the most suitable application would be a Type IV Non-conforming Use. Thomson was not involved in the negotiations, and is unsure why this solution was reached as opposed to leaving the situation as is. Gunderman asked if a certificate of occupancy could be issued. Mattila said the original agreement was to join the lots, however, when it came time to issue the certificate the applicant felt the lot consolidation was not part of the agreement. Because of this, Locke and LeFevere worked to resolve the situation with the proposed lot split to allow issuance of the certificate without combining the lots. Williams asked if a certificate can be issued if the lot is a non-conforming use. Thomson said that although the City made a mistake, the applicant may be entitled to a certificate. However, Thomson is unsure whether the agreement and the condomination are factors and if they would affect the issuance of the certificate. Benke said input from LeFevere and Fulton is vital to this issue, and asked if there is any urgency in resolving the situation. Mattila said a closing has been scheduled, and the applicant feels there is an urgency. Samuelson suggested this item be deferred to allow further research. Gunderman noted the applicant's hardship. He participated in the discussions and feels this may be the only viable alternative, although it does have negative effects. Swanson presented a building activity report which showed a permit was not pulled before construction began. Benke said the approval to proceed was based on the square footage of the combined building on the combined lot. Swanson questioned whether this was a verbal agreement made to the applicant. He agrees that Fulton's input is valuable. Terry Dehn, 2102 - 27th Ave., said her twinhome is adjacent to the applicant's units. During the approval process, staff continually told her to not exceed the 4,000 sq. ft. FAR; and does not understand why the applicant's PAR was overlooked. Also, staff required her twinhome to have 4 continuous layers of 5/8" sheetrock from the footings to the top of the rafters; 5/8" sheetrock on the roof trusses 6' from each party wall; and two 8" blockwalls on a 34" footings below ground. However, the applicant's twinhome which is also a zero lot line, was not required to adhere to these specifications. The applicant's contractor said the building codes changed two years ago and these specifications are not needed. She noted the additional cost required to adhere to the restrictive specifications, and requested her inquires be addressed. She is not trying to put any additional hardship upon the applicant, but feels the City has much to do with the predicament the applicant is in. Benke confirmed that both proposals were built at the same time. He acknowledged that Dehn's inquires cannot be addressed tonight because building staff is not present. Previously, she asked to construct a twinhome on a corner lot, but was told that according to State law a zero lot line would need to be build on the property line or it is not considered a zero lot line, and the units cannot be sold individually. She questioned why this project went forward. Public Hearing PL-230 Lot Split Report 96-225