04-22-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1991 Ik. (#9)ZONING FILE #1628-FINNEY CONTINUED as any non-conforming structure. 5ne snid, "Clearly, this structure would never have been aporoved. The City would only have allowed a four-foot wide staircase, and four b/ four foot safety landings on bank such as this. If any repair has to be done to this structure, it has to come before the Council for approval. Staff does not have the authority to issue building permits for repairs in such cases." Jabbour noted that the structure was built subsequent to the adoption of hardcover and lakeshore set^-iack ordinances in 1^75. He questioned why Staff's recommendati >n is to designate the structure as non-conforming. Mabusth explained that the structure ,'as built eight to ten years ago, and that the Finneys are the second owners of the property since that time. Sne added further that at this point, the stairv/ay structure is helping to support the bank. Butler noted that the applicants are not being asked to address the stairway structure at this point. Bellows explained that the Planning Commission viewed this situation the same as they wouli a case involving a boathouse structure. She said, "The City does not require a person who purchase* a property with a boathouse to immediately tear it down. When the structure requires repairs, the issue of removal is then addressed. I would suggest that in this case, since the Finneys are being asked to address the ®rosion p,roblems, that a long term portion of that plan includi a way to bring the stairway structure into compliance, while allowing it to continue to support the bank." Jabbour noted that the City really cannot force the Finneys to provide erosion control. If the Finneys so choose, they can allow the bank to slide into the lake. Mark Finney conimented that they had tried to do all they can to control the erosion by planting whatever they can get to grow and hold the bank. Sara Finney stated that the problem goes much farther than just their property in that water coming from neighboring properties also washes down their bank. Jabbour referr«»d to an application involving a similar structure which was constructed without permits on Big Island. He stated that there needs to be a more specific distinction made as to why these two applications should be viewed differently. Bellows explained that from the Planning Commission's point of view, there is a distinction between a structure that is - 9 -