Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Mayor & City Council/CU 00-3 <br />March 2, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />A house existed on the parcel straddling the lot line between Lots 3 & 4. The applicant <br />indicated that he intended to expand the office building in the future, which would <br />require removal of the house. The City Council approved the request with the condition <br />that the house be removed within three years of the approval (June 20, 1997). <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />In August of 1999, staff began working with the applicant in order to have him comply <br />with the condition from 1994 (refer to attached letters). Under the threat of criminal and <br />civil action, the applicant has selected the option of amending the conditional use <br />permit to remove the condition and allow the house to remain. The City must determine <br />the following issues: <br /> <br />What is the goal of the City for development along Main Street? If the goal is <br />to encourage commercial/office development, would allowing the house to <br />remain a detriment to that goal? <br />If the house is not detrimental to the development of commercial/office <br />development along Main Street, then the condition could be removed. The <br />house, however, would be nonconforming as dwellings are a conditional use <br />in the C2 District. <br />The development would also be nonconforming as there are two principle <br />structures on one lot, a condition that is only permitted in the PUD, Planned <br />Unit Development District. <br /> <br />The structure appears to be in good shape, with no apparent structural defects. <br /> <br />Planninq Commission Action <br /> <br />The Planning Commission made no recommendation regarding the request. The <br />motion to recommend that the condition be extended to June 20, 2003 failed due to a <br />tie vote. Some commissioners felt that the applicant had had enough time while others <br />felt that allowing the house to remain for a few more years would not be detrimental to <br />the City. The Commission, however, was in agreement that the house should not be <br />allowed to remain indefinitely. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The City Council must determine if it is appropriate to remove the condition from CU 94- <br />17 that required removal of the dwelling. If it is appropriate, then the applicant will be <br />required to bring the property into conforming status. <br /> <br />If the City Council denies the request, it must determine findings for that decision. Such <br />findings may include: <br /> <br /> <br />