04-08-1991 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1991 ( #9)ZONING FILE #1628- FINNEY CONTINUED ,conscientiously constructed avoiding the permit process, and a structure that already exists on a property when it is purchased by new owners." Bernhardson stated that the City could opt to treat both property owners the-same, going after them as violations, in the applications to which Councilmember Jabbour is referring. He advised that has not been the City's policy in the past because the City only pursues complaints or changes to those structures. He said, "In the Finney's case, Staff is recommending that the structure be authorized under this application." Jabbour added, "Especially due to the fact that the structure is supporting the bank." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #2951, granting an average lakeshore setback Variance, based on the- Planning Commission's recommendation. All voted aye. Motion passed. (#10)ZONING FILE #1629 - MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION 1700 FOX STREET VARIANCE James McNulty, McNulty Construction, was present, as was W. D. MacMillan, one of the owners of the subject property. Bernhardson summarized the request by McNulty Construction to construct an addition onto an existing private tennis facility. He noted that with the proposed addition, the footprint area would exceed that approved for this building in 1987. However, the square footage of the building, with the addition, would be approximately 1,000 s.f. less than than what had originally been approved. Gaffron further commented that the Planning Commission recommendation was split two to two. He said, "Two members felt that the original approval conditions and findings were still legitimate, and that-the screening had been done appropriately. The other two members felt there was not sufficient hardship for the original-approval, and that was still the case." Goetten stated that she had voted to approve construction of the building with the 1937 application. She felt that the applicant should be allowed to add on the equivalent of square footage that was initially approved, but not constructed. Butler thought the structure to be excessive, and agreed with th,;: Planning Commission members who did not believe there was sufficient hardship to approve the s-:.ze of the original building. She said, "I cannot see any justification for creating an even greater mistake." - 10 -