12-09-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Planning Commission Members From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant ''Zoning Administrator Date: July 12, 1985 Subject: #92.9 Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wilr1hurst Trail - Conditional Use Pernit - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes 6/17/85 Exhibit B - Staff Memo 6/13/8L) Exhibit C - Rahn Exhibits S-lbmitted at 6/17/85 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit D - Copy of Survey Dated 7/23/75 Exhibit E - 1974-75 Variance Documents Exhibit F - Van Nest Letter 7/12/85 Staf f has investigated fi, rther into the Rahn matter in order to discover whether there ever wa3 an intent by the Planning Commission or Council to allow the structure in question to remain. Our file search unearthed no "working minutes" as Mr. Rahn alluded to, and the fact remains that the cfficia minutes and files, including staff memos, applications submitted b applicant, the 975 survey, etc. all clearly discuss removal of the existing cabin. Mayor Butler was on the City Council at the time (a�I in fact seconded the 7/28/75 motion for approval based on removal (_ f the structure.) and has stated that the official minutes on file are generally very accurate. A letter to the Council and Planning Commiss on dated 7/12/85 from Brad Van Nest, who was chai rrr r, of the Plannin( Commission during that time, states that he reca: :,o stipulations, conditions, or approvals other than what is show.. -,, the officia minutes and that removal of the structure would be consistent %ith the City's policy at that time. (For the record, official minute. s show that Van Nest was absent from the 4/15/74 Plaini.ng Commissir,1 meeting this application was re- viewed). Staff has contacted former Bui'Jing Inspector, Mike Scheller who stated he would have to visit the site in order to recall this project. Although he has made tentative arrangements to meet with Jeanne Mabusth, the meeting has not occurred as of yet. Based on all the information contained in the official City files and submitted ' applicant and other parties, staff would suggest that the follo, ire valid conclusions: Official City records indicate clearly that the structure in question was to Le removed upon completion of the new home. No where do the records indicate t.l,at any portion of the structure was allowed to remain. No official record exists of any actual detailed discus. ion which may have taken place at Planning Commision or Council meetings at that time.