Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1055 <br />August 13, 1_986 <br />Page 6 <br />2. recommendation regarding mother-in-law apartment: <br />Available Options <br />a? approve conditional use pe.iit alerting all future <br />buyers ae to the lir.,itations on use of apartment and <br />make such alteration<, to structure that would deny <br />separate access to ind floor unit; <br />n) ask that first floor be altered such that area can <br />no longer funf-tion 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. :-equL-.-e that Builuing apartment inspect foundation for <br />structura soundness. <br />September 17, 1986 <br />Additional Comments and Planning Commission Reccm mendation: <br />I k a- 04 xff_� <br />As suggested by the Pianning Commission, the applicant has <br />subm3 a letter reviewing, once again, the unique history of <br />his mc,_ is ownerE:',ip and invol �,rement with the property. In <br />that same letter he mists spec'fic hardships and f ndings that he <br />a .ks Council to consider prior to any formal action on the <br />conditional use per~iit. <br />1. Biork st, . that it •Joul.3 be unreasonable at <br />economically no reasible to upc ,_t4e the c: rrent structure <br />to a single fam.L residence on a lot adjacent <br />to the County r and railroad tracks. <br />2. The non -conforming use an. ist.,no zoning Froh' <br />commercial_ use of the property. <br />3. An approved home occupation may 1_,_ove inure of a zoning <br />nightmare in this type of structure. <br />4. The mos�- affected r.-,.,. nb, rs ha, voiced no objection tip <br />Mrs. B jork's current apr,1 i. cati or ne neighbor called the <br />City to suFp .rt any pro:Tram t.ha would al. J ow the severely <br />limit, -t property to be up(_-,radsd. <br />