Laserfiche WebLink
Craig Lanway, 4095 Suffolk Way, supported the appeal of the Cassens and felt the <br />Planning Commission made a mistake. He felt Mr. Slipka violated the eommunity's trust and <br />this is not fair. <br /> <br /> Steve Slipka, 4074 Suffolk Way, stated he appreciated the help he got from staff and <br />would answer any questions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if there was any other place to move the secondary unit door. <br /> <br /> Mr. Slipka stated the door is between his house and the Cassens' home. He stated the <br />Cassen's have four openings on that side of the house; a service door for their garage and three <br />bathrooms. He has not noticed a noise problem but he does work evenings. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked about the monitoring of hours for coming and going on the side <br />entrance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sliplea stated that he has never been contacted about any problems regarding this <br />residence. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if this unit was accessible from the interior of his home and if there <br />was a relative presently living in this unit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Slipka stated that his son and ~ance were living in this unit and it can be entered <br />from the interior of his home. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public heating closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico stated the appellants had made a persuasive case but he could not maim the <br />findings required to uphold the appeal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if the appeal were upheld, was it possible to place new conditions or <br />different conditions on the conditional use permit for the secondary unit? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that different conditions could be placed on the conditional use permit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if that was denying the appeal or adding new conditions to the <br />permit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis supported removing the door from the side, so the access can be monitored <br />by the owner of the house rather than being separate from the house. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated that in approving secondary units that have gone through the <br />normal process, the units normally have another access and a different address (because of fire, <br />etc.). If this access is eliminated, how will this be covered? <br /> <br />01/02/96 -12- <br /> <br /> <br />