02-27-2001 BA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes February 27,2001 Page 2 • dwelling units. He stated that the existing garage structure is not large enough to handle today's size car, especially not the van that he drives. The existing garage, lean-to, and two storage sheds will be removed and replaced with a garage that will take up approximately the same footprint. Mr. Lundberg stated that he feels a garage would be an accessory use in the Cl district. He asked that the Commission allow him reasonable use of his property and approve his request to construct a garage. Chair Mesich asked what uses are allowed in the C2 office district. Ms. McPherson read the uses from the ordinance. Commissioner Baker asked what a garage would be considered. Ms. McPherson stated that a garage would be considered a residential accessory use. Chair Mesich asked Mr. Lundberg if the home was his personal residence and if he had office space there. Mr. Lundberg stated that he rented out the house in the past, but that he is currently living in there himself, but he does not have office space there. Commissioner Baker asked if Mr. Lundberg felt the garage should be allowed as an alteration to an existing residential home, or, as an accessory use in a C2 zoning district. Mr. Lundberg stated that he felt it could be either. Commissioner Pederson asked where the house is located on the property. Mr. Lundberg stated that the house faces 4th Street with a driveway adjacent to it, then a three foot wall, and next to that is the office building. Commissioner Schuster stated that he agreed with Mr. Lundberg that this is an odd property to be in the Cl district. He supported alterations to improve the property and felt the variance hardship standards do apply. Chair Mesich stated that the applicant is not requesting a variance. Mr. Lundberg stated that he would request a variance if the Commission agrees with staff's interpretation that it cannot be allowed under the current ordinance. Commissioner Pederson stated that he felt a new garage would be a dramatic improvement to the property. He felt that the existing vacant Cl and C2 space on Jackson would be more desirable than this property off of 4th Street. He did not feel the request would intensify the residential use and would simply make it more livable. Commissioner Baker questioned what "more livable" means. Ms. McPherson stated that she would interpret more livable to mean bringing a dwelling unit up to current code, or some interior alterations to make it more comfortable for the people living there. Commissioner Baker asked if,when a property becomes nonconforming, is the intent to try to motivate a change to a conforming use. Ms. McPherson stated that she was not aware of the circumstances surrounding the zone change. Typically,when a zone change is implemented, a city has different goals in mind for the ultimate use of a property,while allowing an existing use to continue. Commissioner Baker stated that he would interpret that improvement of a • nonconforming use works against a city's desire for the highest and best use of a property. Ms. McPherson added that by allowing new investment in the property,