Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1059 <br />August 13, 1986 <br />rage 6 <br />2. recommendation regarding mother-in-law apartment: <br />Available Options <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 />b) ask that first floor be altered such that area can <br />no longer function as independent separate residential <br />unit - deny conditional use permt for guest apartment - <br />require that structure be used only for single family <br />use; <br />3. require that Building Department inspect foundation for <br />structural soundness. <br />September 17, 1986 <br />Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation: <br />As suggested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has <br />submitted a letter reviewing, once again, the unique history of <br />his mother's ownership and involvement with the property. In <br />that same letter he lists specific hardships and find igs that he <br />asks Council to consider prior to any formal action on the <br />conditional use permit. <br />1. Bjork states thaLt it would be unreasonable and <br />economically not feasible to upgrade the current structure <br />to a single family residence on a substandard lot adjacent <br />to the County road and railroad tracks. <br />2. The non -conforming use and existing zoning prohibits <br />commercial use of the property. <br />3. An approved hoer occupation may prove more of a zoning <br />nightmare in this t,pe of structure. <br />4. The most affected neighbors have voiced no objection to <br />Mrs. Bjork's current application. One neighbor called the <br />City to support any Drogram that would allow the severely <br />limited property to be upgraded. <br />