07-15-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i jl I Planning Commission Members y i I: ‘ t Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator July 12, 1985 « #929 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail ~ Conditional Use Permit - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Planning Commission Minutes 6/17/85 Staff Memo 6/13/85 Rahn Exhibits Submitted at 6/17/85 Planning Commission Meeting Copy of Survey Dated 7/23/75 1974-75 Variance Documents Van Nest Letter 7/12/85 Staff has investigated further into the Rahn matter in ordei to discover whether there ever was an intent by the Planning Commission or Council to allow the structure in question to remain. Our file search unearthed no "working minutes" as Mr. Rahn alluded to, and the fact remains that the official minutes and files, including staff memos, applications submitted by applicant, the 1975 survey, etc. all clearly discuss removal of the existing cabin. Mayor Butler was on the City Council at the time (and in fact seconded the 7/28/75 motion for approval based on removal of the structure) and has stated that the official minutes on file are generally very accurate. A letter to the Council and Planning Commission dated 7/12/85 from Brad Van Nest, who was chairman of the Planning Commission during that time, states that he recalls no stipulations, conditions, or approvals other tnan what is shown in the official minutes and that removal of the structure would be consistent with the City's policy at that time. (For the record, official minutes show that Van Nest was absent fron> the 4/15/74 Planning Commission meeting this application was re viewed ). Staff has contacted former Building Inspector, Mike Scheller who stated he would have to visit the site in order to recall this project. A;,.though he has made tentative arrangements to meet with Jeanne Mabusth, the meeting has not occurred as cf yet. Based on all the information contained in the official City files and submitted by the applicant and other parties, staff would suggest that the following are '^alid conclusions; 1. Official City records indicate clearly that the structure in question was to be removed upon completion of the new home. No where do the records indicate that any portion of the structure was allowed to remain. No official record exists of any actual detailed discussion which may liave taken place at Planning Commision or Council meetings at that time.