Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift suggested requiring a new condition that the side door be eliminated and that <br />an entrance satisfacwry to the Planning Director be provided at the front of the unit or through <br />the interior of the unit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if that would be accomplished by upholding the appeal, forcing the <br />homeowner to come back with a new design for the secondary unit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that if the application is turned down, the homeowner could come back <br />with a new application for a revised plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis, after speaking with the Cassens, felt the door was the pwblem, not the unit. <br />Why not condition the permit? Does it have to have a separate entrance? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said there is an entrance off the corridor in the main house and there is a door <br />in the rear. Using the rear door would not accomplish anything more than move the noise closer <br />to the Cassens' bedroom. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that if the appeal is denied and a condition imposed to remove the <br />door on the side of the house, the homeowner can always come back to find a secondary access <br />through the garage or some other way in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated if the appeal is upheld then the use permit is denied. Mr. Slipka will <br />have to remove the secondary unit, which does not remove the door and does not change the fact <br />that the five rooms could still be occupied by the current tenant; the unit just would not have a <br />kitchen. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if Mr. Slipka could go through the Zoning Administrator so that <br />this does not go to Council again? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis stated that Council should condition the permit to have the entrance to the <br />secondary unit through the front door of the house or put an entrance elsewhere (after going <br />through staff) and noticing the neighbors. Until that time the primary access would still be <br />through the front door of the residence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was opposed because he did not feel the appeal should be denied. He felt the <br />appeal should be upheld and the homeowner required to come back with an application for a new <br />design. <br /> <br />01/02/96 -13- <br /> <br /> <br />