02-09-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File 41090 February 3, 1987 Page 3 of 4 or 1.34 or 1) Conditional use permit for guest house if lot is enlarged 2) Conditional use permit for non -conforming use 3) Relocate lot lines to create a separate parcel for the rental 4) Removal of the house prior to final approval. Minutes of 7/24/78 indicate Mrs. Hollander proposed that the existing rental house would become a guest house on her lot. The preliminary plat approval motion by Planning Commission on 9/11/78 noted in the phased development that the •remaining land" be platted into two outlots, one containing the 3 dwellings and one the remaining land southeast o' the road, ane that there will be a moratorium on all construction until they are properly divided. (emphasis added) Staff contend that this documentation prove:, that Mrs. Hollander was given fair warning that there were four alternatives in relation to the rental structure. She verbally chose the guest house use, but she did not revise her proposal in order to accommodate a third house on the property as was noted as a requirement by Olson in his list of alternatives. This leads staff to conclude that Mrs. Hollander in so doing gave up her rights to the guest house use. Staff also suggests that the alternative of a conditional use permit for continuation of the non -conforming use was never a viable alternative given that, at the time of original subdivision, there was the potential to make this a conforming use by placing the rent-1 on its cwn lot. Now, consider the following: 1. Lot 1 is proposed to contain 2.16 dry buildable acres in a 2-acre zone, and is about 250' wide at the location of the two houses. In no way can the second house meet the requirements for lot width or area. 2. If the lot area and width standards could be met, the rental house and main residence are too close to each other to have a lot line drawn between them that would still keep a 30' setback from each structure. 3. The rental house use is and has been a violation of Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 7 which allows only one principal building per lot. Continued rental use should not be allowable solely on the basis that this is an opportunity to discontinue the violation. 4. To our knowledge, the rental has never been used as a quest house; therefore, new guest house use require■ a conditional use permit approval and should be required to substantially meet the performance standards adopted for such use. Approval of such a conditional use permit under the many lot requirement variances necessary would be inconsistent with past approvals.