Laserfiche WebLink
■-.--rr <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 8 <br />Frahm noted for the Planning Commission considerations <br />that must be addressed in this review: <br />(WISEGARVER CONT) <br />1 - The original conditional use permit involved <br />the owner living on the property while operating <br />the business. The zoning on this piece of <br />property is residential. <br />2 - To approve this you would almost have to rezone. <br />Does the owner or representative have to reside <br />on the property? <br />Opheim stated that based on his opinion that it is a <br />good use of the property. He stated that it shouldn’t <br />have to be made a condition of approval that the owner <br />live there. As long as it conforms with the City code <br />it would be a good idea. <br />McDonald stated that it is a commercial use in a <br />residential area. The reason it was approved before <br />is because they lived on the property. To approve it <br />now they would have to rezone. <br />Applicant asked the Planning Commission if it was more <br />valuable as residential or commercial?v;: <br />Mabusth noted that the existing zoning is residential <br />and if the owner does not live on the property is this <br />not a use variance? State code forbids the granting <br />of use variances. <br />■ i , <br />■ ir mw <br />Goetten stated that this application was very similar to the <br />Leo Duehn application. She stated that she understood the <br />zoning situation with the number of variances needed, but <br />is it reasonable that the City should require them to build <br />an apartment or residence on that small piece of property. <br />Opheim felt it was an appropriate use of the land <br />not suitable for anything else, but not living on the <br />property could the Planning Commission legally recommend <br />approval? <br />1 <br />rm» <br />Frahm stated that the City would have to rezone land <br />or change the definition of a conditional use permit. <br />Applicant stated that if the clear title to who owns <br />the land is not decided, that he must ask for an <br />extension of the April 8, 1982, deadline date from the <br />resolution approving the former conditional use permit. <br />Can the City gaurantee him an extension? <br />m <br />m <br />Mabusth stated that the Council would be notified and <br />asked to consider this point. <br />No action required.