02-16-2016 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cil�' cound Nfirl"te's Februan, 16, 2016 -.1111.1-1-1 ------------ Page 4 high density. fie stated lie plans to add 60 units to help absorb the costs for the conversion to a market rate facility. Mr. Briggs indicated he has submitted an application for an Interim Use permit. He requested reimbursement for at least orie of the previous applications since lie has spent a considerable amount of time on past applications. Ile further explained he is comfortable with the 1UP application although it means giving up their current Conditional Use Permit from 2011. There beinf-), no one else to speak to this issue, Mayor Dietz closed the public hearing. Mayor Dietz asked. Mr. Carlton if he, had a responses to any of Mr. Briggs comments. Mr. Carlton provided a history of applications as outlined in his PowerPoint. He stated the only fees charged were with an application submitted September 28, 2015, that was withdrawn October 26 and the land use and CUP applications being considered this evening. He stated the fees/escrows were used for both of those applications. Councilmember Burandt stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting and asked if an IUP application was received. Mr. Carlton confirmed an 1UP application was received.january 26 and deemed complete. Councilmember Westgaard confirmed the request being considered this evening is for a land use amendment and CUP to operate a hotel. He questioned if the existing CUP has been revoked or ceased. Mr. Carlton explained based on the report from the State Fire Marshal's Office dated May 1, 2014, the property was not being operated in a use consistent with the approved CUP; therefore, the CUP expired on November 1, 2014, (6 months from the date of the report). Councihnembcr Wagner questioned if the property has been operating since November 2014 without a CLJP. Mr. Carlton indicated it had. He added the Fire and Building Departments began inspections in early 2015 to resolve building permit issues but the building is not approved to operate as an apartment building or hotel. Moved by Councihnember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember Wagner to deny the land use amendment because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding properties. Attorney Beck indicated the motion should be directing staff to prepare a resolution of findings for formal denial. Councilmember Westgaard amended his motion directing staff to prepare a resolution of findings for denial of the land use amendment based on the following: 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. rp 0 V F R I I I I