04-22-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f'l- f € regular city council meeting held APRIL 8. 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE fl628-FINNEY CONTINUED conscientiously constructec a/oidin? tie permit process, and a structure that already exists on a property when it is purchaseo by new owners." Bernhardson stated that the C: f. could opt to treat both property owners the same, going after them as violations, in the applications to which Councilmember ^ibbour is referrincg. He advised that has not been the City's policy in the past because the City only pursues complaints or changes to those structjres. He said, "In the Finney’s case. Staff is recommending that the 5tructure be authorized under this appliv-ation. Jabbour added, "Especially c e «3tructure is supporting the bank. i-.o the fact that the It was moviid by Goetten, sseconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #2951, granting an average iakeshore setback Variance, based on the- Planning Commission's recommendation. All voted aye. Motion passed. (ilO)ZONING PILE #1629-MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION 1700 FOX STREET VARIANCE .James McNulty, McNulty Construction, was present, as was w. D. MacMillan, one of the owners o: 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 btiilding, with the addition, would be approximately 1,000 s.f. less than than what had originally been approved. Gaffron further commented that the P;.anning 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 the Planning Commission members who did not believe there was sufficient hardship to approve the size of the original building. She said, "I cannot see any justification for creating an even greater mistake." - 10 - i mP';