Loading...
05-07-1991 Request• • • MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION May 7, 1991 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order Tuesday, May 7, 1991 at 7:30 by Chairman John Sargent. Members present were James Brown, Marilyn George, Edward Ivey, Bonnie Kranz Don Smith and Joseph Wiebush. Members absent were Adelbert Evans and Peter Bertonaschi. Also attending were Lanny Harker Planning Director and Mimi Hauch Planning Technician. MINUTES of the meeting held April 2, 1991, were approved as presented, subject to clarification of the last paragraph. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Julian Fogle Albert Fogle, Representative LOCATION: 596 West Highway 50 REQUEST: To allow the repair of a non-conforming residence, fire damaged by more than fifty percent (50%), in the C-1 Commercial District. Mr. Harker informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting this Conditional Use Permit to repair a non-conforming structure damaged by fire in 1986. The owner of the property at that time, Mrs. Esther Brown, was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the repair of the "homestead" structure due to the fact that this was a hardship on Mrs. Brown. This CUP expired on July 14, 1988. Mr. Harker further explained that Mr. Fogle has since acquired the property and is now requesting a CUP for the repair of this structure. However, the circumstances are now different in that this is not a "homestead" for the applicant and therefore the hardship no longer exists. Both the site and structure are non- conforming with the City development regulations. The non- conformities are as follows: 1. The site does not meet the lot size requirements of 7, 500 square feet for a single family dwelling (existing lot size is 3,500 square feet). 2. The structure does not meet the required setback from SR 50, which is 50 feet from the property line (existing setback is 8 feet). 3. The structure does not meet the single family dwelling square footage requirement of 1,000 square feet (existing size is 6?2 square feet). 4. The structure has been cited as unsafe, dangerous and hazardous by the fire department and still exceeds the fifty percent (50$) damage criteria established for non- conforming structures by adopted City Code. Mr. Harker informed the Commission that due to these conditions staffs recommendation is for denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Sargent asked how far does the north end of this structure set from the north property line. 1 • • Mr. Harker stated that the setback from the north was approximately 12 feet. Mr. Smith stated that when this case was previously presented to the Commission the people that owned the parcel to the north objected due to the fact that part of the rear steps on this residence encroached onto their property. Mr. Harker said that he.was not sure if this was actually the case. Mr. Harker submitted six photographs of the building to the Commission. Mr. Harker stated he felt these photographs demonstrated the unsafe and hazardous condition of the building. Mr. Albert Fogle was present as representative of the applicant. Mr. Fogle stated that the applicant did realize that the property along Highway 50 is zoned commercial, and therefore the City would prefer commercial uses within that area. However, the use of this parcel as a residence would not be forever and that negotiations with some of the surrounding property owners was in process to purchase their property for commercial use. Mr. Fogle stated, in reference to the pictures submitted to the Commission, that the applicant did not want to spend any further money to repair the structure until a decision was made in regards to the CUP. If the structure is allowed to remain, the property would be landscaped and there would be an even greater desire on the owners part to keep the parcel looking nice. Mr. Fogle informed the Commission that all monies are in place to renovate the property immediately if the CUP is approved. Further discussion followed regarding which street should be considered the front of this parcel. Mr. Sargent asked if lot 2 was vacant and if it was also owned by the applicant. Mr. Fogle stated the parcel is vacant and is also owned by the applicant. Mr. Sargent noted that if Lot 2 and Lot 3 where combined they would have the square footage required. Mr. Harker stated that the application for the CUP was only for Lot 3. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant could build on the parcel if Lots 2 and 3 where combined, but he could not build where the house is presently located. Further discussion followed regarding combining the two parcels and the feasibility of moving the structure. Mr. Ivey stated that if the applicant wanted to build a residence using Lot 2 and half of Lot 3 this could be done without a CUP. However, the existing residence would have to be relocated in order to meet the required setbacks. A motion was made by Don Smith to recommend to the City Council denial of this request, seconded by Ed Ivey, approved by a unanimous vote. 2 • ~ • REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Ken Norquist LOCATION: 490 West Avenue REQUEST: To amend Resolution No. 671 by allowing the placement of a train caboose for use as an office, which will be consistent with the existing theme of the site, located in the C-1 Commercial District. Mr. Harker informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting an amendment to this CUP to allow the placement of a train caboose for use an office. The existing facility which is to be used as a restaurant is very small and could not facilitate both a restaurant and office. Staffs recommendation is for approval. Mr. Sargent noted that Ken Norquist, the applicant, was attending a City Council meeting and was therefore absent. Rev. Ivey asked if the office facility would be used for the restaurant or for another business. Mr. Harker stated it would be used for a business, however, the exact use or uses were not known by staff at the present time. Rev. Ivey stated that the original CUP was for the restaurant and questioned if the office were to be used for another business, if this would not be in violation of the original CUP. Mr. Sargent stated that he felt that a condition could be included in the CUP that if the previous resolution limited the use solely to a restaurant that this might have to be emended if the office was to be used as another business. Further discussion followed regarding the type of business that could be operated at this location. A motion was made by Don Smith to table this request until the June 4, 1991 meeting, seconded by Bonnie Kranz. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. c ~_. John Sargent, C airman ATTEST: Mimi Hauch, Planning Technician 3