Laserfiche WebLink
dent <br />rolve <br />d 15. <br />lures <br />) not <br />f the <br />^ has <br />king <br />I (E) <br />s in <br />the <br />Zoning File #1091 <br />November 11, 1986 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Issues for Consideration: <br />uU “ TrirraelTtm ccmercial parking lot <br />• • <br />sLaVrf ’^hat this use is limited to a speciric area . , . location . . , can we legally do this? <br />‘’or is^"the "®<=®s?ary f indings to support the amendment. . <br />to support fo?ma! amendS"''""" "" adequate <br />^’‘hibit G, finds that the 4 dwelling units on the <br />® non-ccnforming use and goes further to state that a <br />conditional use permit/variance application is required for formal <br />recognition as a legal non—conforming use. <br />® property in a residential zoneconsidered non—conforming? <br />V*® intensity or level of residential use of a property <br />apply in such consideration? Review Section 10.03, Subdivsiion 5 A-J. <br />Conforming? findings to support that use is non- <br />1. Existed prior to January 1, 1975; <br />2. City's formal position in Resolution #1855. <br />Subdlv^csron^q^ respond to the directive of Section 10.03, <br />Item A - a non-conforming use cannot be changed to <br />another non-conforming use - at 1960 Shoreline Drive the obvious <br />remov^S^V remains but in this case the structures are <br />^ u® non-conforming use installed - although more <br />acceptable what unique findings can be made to still find this <br />conforms to the relative ordinances? <br />?n above, what about the directive of Section <br />10.03, Subdivision 5 D - if the buildings are removed, the code says a <br />conforming use must be installed. ^ <br />^o^^^itional use permit that would make the use <br />subject to reapproval every 5-10 years with an option for <br />owners to revert to residential development if parking lot is not <br />acceptable at some future date? <br />will bring excessive hardcover - if a formal <br />application is filed the following information must be addressed: