06-27-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1276 Page 2 of 3 and a series of more enlightened owners, the City had very few problems with the commercial operation of the market. The real problem appeared to be the inability to make a profit based on the severe limitations for the commercial operation of that market. In Resolutions 1646, 1735, and 2188 the new owners and operators of the market were granted more liberal use of the structure and property. The City would not permit expansion, but they did allow structural modifications within the existing building envelope such a s : 1. Removal of the apartment unit, as this proved to be an impractical requirement. 2. Expansion of the retail f loor area and with the -emova 1 of the residential area, the replacement with storage areas. 3. Expansic n uses allowing a mini -bake operation, a delicatessen type -use, catering use, the City noted very specifically that no tables for serving people within the structure would be allowed because of tl a severe limitations of the property. The catering/delicatessen operation was to be limited to a retail/pickup- type use. New members to the commission may wish to review the non -conforming use sections of the code noted above. It is important to remember that any non -conforming use cannot legally be allowed to be expanded or intensified; one non -conforming use cannot be changed to another non -conforming use; and, most important for this review, if a specific non -conforming use has been discontinued for over a year, a conforming use must be re-established on the property. Review Exhibit K. The previous owner of the property, Doug Bumgardner, had closed the market some time in June of '87 for the extensive repairs to the structure proposed with the approval of Applicaticn 1132 (review Exhibits G, I, and J). In the staff letter of February 5, 1988, the new owner, the David C. Bell, Investment Co., was cc'd a copy of the subject letter advising of the approximate deadline wheretiy the commercial use would have to be discontinued if the commercial market was not reopened by the appropriate deadline date. Gary Kirt of the David C. Bell Investment Company filed the required Conditional Use Permit as the authorized representative of new owner of the property, a new owner that wishes to continue the commercial market use of the existing structure. The subject structure is still in a state of disrepair as Mr. Bumgardner never completed the approved alterations within the interior of the structure. The applicant would not only have to apply for appropriate building permits to complete the structural changes, but would in effect have to seek approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the improvements sought by Mr. Bumgardner in Resolution 2188 as the deadline date for renewal expired on May 26, 1988. The applicant has been in touch with staff, but, unfortunately, because of the heavy number of applications filed for last month's meeting, had to be put off to the optional meeting for this month. Unless the Planning Commission has concern with the improvements approved by the City in Resolution 2188 being reapproved under the new ownershit staff would recommend approval of a renewal Conditional Use Permit for the non -conforming use of the property as a market by the