09-26-1989 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Planning Commission Minu~es September 26. 1989 ! Steve Rohlf indicated that there are no records of what was grandfathered-in in 1980. therefore making it difficult to know what we can enforce. Commissioner Kimball questioned Mr. Keane on a legal determination of the use. Commissioner Kimball indicated he would like to see this issue resolved rather than tabling it. Tim Keane. City Attorney indicated that what you're faced with is that in 1980 the existing zoning ordinance was adopted and incorporated with prOV1S10ns and clauses for grandfathering in these uses creating the non- conformities and the amoritization of the non-conforming use. Steve Rohlf indicated that the applicant created a dangerous situation for a lot of people when he had the cubicles in the basement. Staff plans to have the fire marshall back to make sure that it is not happening again as he has the right of entry. Mr. Rohlf further indicated that he had asked legal counsel if we could enforce the 10 units as 10 units and not multiple units each. Mr. Keane indicated that we could as a condition of this approval. Commissioner Johnson indicated that she was uncomfortable with approving this request and then putting conditions that mayor may not be enforceable or carefully watched. Commissioner Kimball was in agreement with Commissioner Schroeder that there could be problems enforcing that which is already enforceable. COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET CONDITION NO. 2 FOR GRANTING THE EXPANSION OF A NON CONFORMING USE AND THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE FIVE STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. THE FINDINGS OF FACT WERE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE APPLICANT HAS NO HARDSHIP IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY. 2. SINCE THERE WAS NO HARDSHIP. VARIANCE STANDARD NO.2 CAN NOT BE MET. 3. THERE WAS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE R-1C ZONE THAT ARE CURRENTLY ENJOYING RIGHTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ALLOWED. 4. THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE MOTEL PROPERTY WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS CLASSIFIED AS A NON-CONFORMING THAT THAT USE. 5. THE USE HAS A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMI SSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. After discussing the motion. it was the concensus of the Commission that they would like to have a resolution created to address the concerns by the Planning Commission. 6.