Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Planning Commission/CU 00-3 <br /> February 25,2000 <br /> Page 2 <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 /> Analysis <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 /> 1. 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 /> 2. 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 /> 3. 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 /> The structure appears to be in good shape, with no apparent structural defects. <br /> Recommendation <br /> The Planning Commission must determine if it is appropriate to remove the condition <br /> from CU 94-17 that required removal of the dwelling. If it is appropriate, then the <br /> applicant will be required to bring the property into conforming status. <br /> If the Planning Commission denies the request, it must determine findings for that <br /> decision. Such findings may include: <br /> 1. The condition was part of the original approval; the City found removal of the <br /> house was in the best interest of the City at that time and the City's opinion <br /> has not changed. <br /> 2. The dwelling is nonconforming. <br /> 3. Allowing the dwelling to remain is inconsistent with the redevelopment of <br /> Main Street to commercial uses. <br /> • <br />