Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Frolik replied that the foster home is a permitted use, the <br />permit is only pertaining to the request to use the second dwelling. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if a group home were to come in for sex offenders would that be allowed. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that that is not the issue, foster homes are guided by State law. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen stated that #8 of the findings of fact states "That the tunnel does in <br />fact connect the two buildings and meets the intention of City Code." and inquired if that is the <br />kind of statement they would want included in the findings of fact. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen replied that the Council needs to decide whether or not the <br />underground tunnel meets the spirit of the City Code. <br /> <br />Councihnember Connolly stated that the Planning Commission felt that they could require a 50 <br />foot breeze-way to be constructed from the accessory building to the main house, which would <br />not be pleasant to view and for that reason they agreed with the tunnel. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the reason for the requirement is to avoid having two <br />dwellings on one parcel and he does not want to do anything that would set precedent in the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested making the general statement that the tunnel does connect the two <br />buildings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmennan inquired if there would be someone on-site all the time that owns <br />the building. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith replied that she is there a lot of the time, but not all the time. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik noted that there would be staff members on-site all the <br />time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that it is often recognized that things exist and come up with <br />different decisions by the fact that they were there and the situation may be different if they did <br />not exist. If the Council were confronted with a situation where they were requested to allow a <br />second dwelling to be constructed they may have a different opinion and inquired if that should <br />be addressed in the findings of fact. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that it would be appropriate to state that the situation is unique <br />and that it would be doubtful that a similar situation would be granted in the future. He <br />recommended the following changes to the findings of fact: <br /> <br />· Findings of fact #8 be amended to read "That the tunnel had been previously constructed." <br /> <br />City Council/October 24, 2000 <br /> Page 12 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />