Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes <br />February 16, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />high density. He stated he plans to add 60 units to help absorb the costs for the <br />conversion to a market rate facility. Mr. Briggs indicated he has submitted an <br />application for an Interim Use Permit. He requested reimbursement for at least one <br />of the previous applications since he has spent a considerable amount of time on <br />past applications. He further explained he is comfortable with the IUP application <br />although it means giving up their current Conditional Use Permit from 2011. <br />There being no one else to speak to this issue, Mayor Dietz closed the public <br />hearing. <br />Mayor Dietz asked Mr. Carlton if he had a responses to any of Mr. Briggs comments. <br />Mr. Carlton provided a history of applications as outlined in his PowerPoint. He <br />stated the only fees charged were with an application submitted September 28, 2015, <br />that was withdrawn October 26 and the land use and CUP applications being <br />considered this evening. He stated the fees/escrows were used for both of those <br />applications. <br />Councilmember Burandt stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting and <br />asked if an IUP application was received. Mr. Carlton confirmed an IUP application <br />was received January 26 and deemed complete. <br />Councilmember Westgaard confirmed the request being considered this evening is <br />for a land use amendment and CUP to operate a hotel. He questioned if the existing <br />CUP has been revoked or ceased. Mr. Carlton explained based on the report from <br />the State Fire Marshal's Office dated May 1, 2014, the property was not being <br />operated in a use consistent with the approved CUP; therefore, the CUP expired on <br />November 1, 2014, (6 months from the date of the report). <br />Councilmember Wagner questioned if the property has been operating since <br />November 2014 without a CUP. Mr. Carlton indicated it had. He added the Fire and <br />Building Departments began inspections in early 2015 to resolve building permit <br />issues but the building is not approved to operate as an apartment building or hotel. <br />Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember <br />Wagner to deny the land use amendment because the proposed use is not <br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible with the <br />surrounding properties. <br />Attorney Beck indicated the motion should be directing staff to prepare a resolution <br />of findings for formal denial. <br />Councilmember Westgaard amended his motion directing staff to prepare a <br />resolution of findings for denial of the land use amendment based on the <br />following: <br />1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />2. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. <br />P O W E R E D 0 Y <br />AUR <br />