Laserfiche WebLink
mr^- <br />‘ /f.’ • ■.' <br />1 <br />OROHO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 <br />(13)ZONING FILE 11632-STEVE MARTIN <br />3890 SHORELINE DRIVE <br />RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PUBLIC HEARING <br />A representative for Steve Martin was present <br />Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.ra. <br />• -.J' <br />Mi <br />Mabusth reviewed the issues involved with this application, <br />ep outlined in her April 10, 1991 nemo. She stated that the <br />proposed duplex meets all the standards of the Conditional Use <br />Permit granted in 1979. Mabusth said, "The problem is that now I <br />received an updated survey which indicates that the 931.5 <br />elevation comes extremely close to the proposed structure. There <br />must be at least a 14 foot separation between the structure and <br />that elevation. There is adequate room on the property to move <br />the structure forward while maintaining the required front <br />setback from the street. Even though no filling is proposed, <br />this application is subject to review by the DNR because of the <br />sensitive nature of this property. I would recommend that the <br />applicant provide an amended site plan showing the structure <br />moved forward at least 14 feet." <br />Kelley indicated that he does not favor a duplex in this <br />location, and questioned whether the Planning Commission had any <br />ability to deny the Conditional Use Permit at this point. <br />Mabusth replied, "I cannot address the legal aspect of that <br />question. Tne Conditional U5se Permit was acted on back in 1979. <br />I do not know whether a 1991 Council can be tied to decisions <br />made by the City Council back in 1979. If the applicant is not <br />saeking Variances to that Conditional Use Permit, I am not sure <br />that the Planning Commission can now recommend denial. There has <br />been no change in zoning, or other changes for that matter, <br />involving this property." <br />Cohen stated that 12 years is a long time for something to <br />exist in limbo without some follow up. He added that he also <br />objects to a duplex in this location. <br />fHv'" <br />Johnson asked whether the applicant has fully explored his <br />capability to construct anything on this site. He said, "There <br />must be some poor soil conditions." <br />Mr. Martin's representative agreed that soil boiings will <br />have to be taken, but have not yet been done. <br />Cohen suggested that reviewing this application at this <br />stage may be premature. He stated that the DNR has not yet <br />reviewed this, that soil borings have not yet been taken, and <br />that an amended plan will have to be provided showing the <br />structure relocated to accommodate the 14 feet required between <br />it and t.be 931' elevation. <br />- 5 - <br />‘ A <br />;. .V - f-y-Ui <br />'Mi <br />i <br />1