11-08-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO:Mavor Callahan an<^ jno Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 7, 1993 SUBJECT: /'1860 Zelma McKinney. 3599 Livingston Avenue - Conditional Use Permit Additional Exhibit N - Site Plan Submitted by Applicant Locating Parking Stalls on Site Brief Review of Application Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the continuation of a nonconforming use that has existed on the property prior to 1962. The applicant has owned the property since May of 1962. At that time, the residence structure contained rental units. Per Exhibit E, a building p^'rmit issued in 1957 by the City also confinned that rental units existed within the structure. In August of 1962 the City passed an ordinance allowing only single family use of the area but Ihe amendment did not require that a conditional use permit be filed for the continuation of a nonconforming use In 1968 and 19^5 the code was again amended and now required the filing of the conditional use permit to allow continuation of nonconforming uses. The applicant was never aware of the requirements ot the code amendments. Mrs. McKinney now wishes to sell the property as a legal duplex. Mrs. McKinney has provided an income tax record and original handwritten rent receipts to the City to confirm that property has been rental property through her ownership. As already noted in 1957, the City officially recorded that there were rental units within the residence structure. Staff asked the Planning Commission to review the pertinent sections of the code to determine if there was a deadline for the -iling of conditional use permits for nonconforming uses which existed prior to the 1975 or 1968 code. There was nothing in the code that would proliibit applicant from filing the current conditional use permit for the continuation of the nonconforming use. As of this writing, the City is in receipt of one letter from an adjacent neighbor who was opposed U3 the City granting approval of a duplex use of the property, review E.xhibit M. Staff received phone calls fnmi neighbors who were pleased to see that the residence was not going to be used as triplex but rather a duplex and that it would be sold as an owner-occupied residence. At the public hearing, there was no one in the audience who voiced concern with the proposal. A iiiember of the Planning Commission noted that this would be the time to require that the property revert back to the single family use with the sale of the property by Mrs. McKinney. I hc majority of the members found the property would be suitable for a duple.x use and could support the four off street parking stalls (two within double car garage). The