Laserfiche WebLink
V..i! <br />£X^./=“ <br />5*7-B7 <br />lOi Planning Commission <br />Niehanl P. Caffron» Assistant Planning and Zoning <br />Adainintrator <br />April 17, 1987 <br />t Film tlll9» w. D. MacMillan, 1700 Fo* Straat <br />Conditional Uss Permit and Variance - Second Review <br />Llat of Bahibita <br />A <br />B <br />C <br />O <br />B <br />Revised Site Plan 4 Sketches, Sheets 1-4 <br />Additional Exhibits Subedited by Applicant <br />B-1 Bistory of Occupancy a i Use <br />B-2 Proposed Covenants <br />B-3 Discussion Ret Sprinkler System <br />B-4 Building Data <br />Memo and Exhibits of 3/11/87 <br />Planning Commission Minutes 3/16/87 <br />Notice of 3/18/87 <br />Hotel This item was tabled at you meeting of 3/16/87 in order <br />for staff and applicant to address the issues of concern relating <br />to the degree of variance requested, the potential future use of <br />the structure and methods to control or limit ouch use, and site <br />planning considerations. <br />XtOB X. Quostient Dees the fact that the property is not <br />itoaded constitute a valid finding of denial of the variance <br />Answers la a legal opinion provided by City Attorney Rathloen <br />Blots, she states that the City code dees net differentiate <br />soning districts on the basis of the full-time or part-time use <br />of residential properties. The idea that the existing resident <br />struetnro on the MacMillan property is a guest house in itself is <br />not legally sound, given that the cede dees not establish full­ <br />time nnngo of the primary dwelling as a criteria for granting <br />conditional use permits or variances. Blots ceacludea that a <br />vnrinaee denial based on whether there is part-time or full-time <br />utilisation of the property is not a proper legal basis, and the <br />Planning Conmiaoien and Council should review the proposal in <br />relation to the degree of variance requested and the hardships <br />as justification for the variance. <br />Item IX. Proposed covenants for use. The applicants have <br />provided a proposed covenant to be placed in the chain of title, <br />that states that the enclosed tennis court will never be used <br />eemswreially and may never be subdivided off from the main <br />residence. Zt is the City Attorney's opinion that such a <br />doowent filed in the chain of title is legally enforceable. Zs <br />the proposed wordinq conceptually acceptable to the Planning <br />k <br />• k <br />m