Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1059 <br />August 13, 1986 <br />Page 6 <br />2. recommendation reg-_ding mother-in-law apartment: <br />Available optio;:s <br />a) approve conditional use permit alerting all future <br />buyers as to the limitations on use of apartment and <br />make such alterations to structure that would deny <br />separate access to 2nd floor unit; <br />h) ask that first floor be altered such that area can <br />no longer function as independent separat residential <br />it - deny conditional use permt for gu, apartment - <br />guire that structure be used only for gle family <br />use; <br />3. require that Building Departm. in -,t foundation for <br />structural soundness. <br />September. 17, 1986 <br />Additional Comments and Planning Co®misssio, Recommendation: <br />Addit i renal '��hibits - <br />LxhibiL It - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/18/86 <br />Exhibit B - Bjork letter <br />AF suggested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has <br />submits<;,d a Lett r reviewing, once again, the unique history of <br />his mother's ownership and involvemert witn the pr. nerty. In <br />that same letter he lists specific t .ships and findings that he <br />asks Council to consider prior to any forma action on the <br />condi+ional use permit. <br />1. ork states that it would be unreasonable and <br />e, mically not feasible to upgrade the t.;,irrent structure <br />t!:� a single family residence on a subst- -;;,rd lot adjacent <br />to the County road and rai' oad tracks. <br />2. The non -conforming use anu ex= ;ng zoning prohibits <br />commercial use of the property. <br />3. An apj r . •.mod home-ccupation may prove rrore of a zoning <br />nightmare in this t•.,. of structure. <br />8. The most affected neighbors have voiced no objection to <br />Mrs. B jork's current application. one neignbor called the <br />City to • )port any program that would al low the severely <br />limited prcpercy to be upgraded. <br />