Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1059 <br />August 13, 1986 <br />Page 4 <br />Questions that must be resolved for applicant prior to presenting <br />property for public sale. <br />1. Does the property qualify for duplex credit? <br />a) Adjacent to commercially used property (legal non- <br />conforming use - upholstery shop) property is not adjacent <br />to a commercial district as required in Section 10.20, <br />Subdivision 3 (I). <br />b) Duplex section does not establish need for area or width <br />standard but Section 10.03, Subdivision 4 would require that <br />property meet all zoning standards to permit a change or <br />intensification in use - property is substandard in area and <br />building is located within right-of-way of County Road. <br />c) Does the fact that the property was assessed 2 water <br />units and 2 sewer units have any bearing on this issue? <br />Assessme its were based on existing uses - residential units <br />because property wai located in residential zone. <br />d) Had the City made any commitments to applicant since <br />acquisition of property that would suggest duplex use was a <br />legal use for property? <br />City has consistently advised applicant that converted <br />commercial area to mother-in-law apartment was to remain non­ <br />rental unit. City failed to ask for the necessary conditional <br />use permit to allow the guest apartment - may have been deemed a <br />less intense use of limited property than a commercial use - <br />similar commercial use would have been allowed if one year had <br />not lapsed since dry cleaning plant use ceased operation. <br />e) Can you make the necessary findings that would support <br />the position that would find the installation of the second <br />residential unit in 1976 as a continuation of a non- <br />conforming use. Staff did not ask for a conditional use <br />permit for the non-rental apartment nor for a conditional <br />use permit to allow the continuation of a non-conforming <br />use. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (A) the non­ <br />conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming <br />use. The new use would not have been approved. Prior to <br />the 1967 Zoning Code there were no standards for non- <br />conforming uses - the change in use from grocery store to <br />dry cleaning plant required no zoning review. <br />Staff had originally advised applicant's son that a review <br />of the files and code may have supported this position but we can <br />not make the necessary findings.