03-09-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Mar~ch 9, 1988 Schr~ier• Schr•ier~ again stated that he r~elied on the infor•mation given to him (Cont.) pr~eviously that the 10-year• pr•ovision would apply to the tr~iangular parcel. Schrier stated that if the Council feels the CUP is unacceptable at this point and the pr•oper•ty r•ever•ts to R-2 zoning without the CUP, he would have to litigate the matter. Fahey asked Schr•ier• if he wished the Council to defer~ action on the matter~ unti 1 hi s attor~ney coul d be pr~esent. Schr•ier• di d not feel the pr~esence of hi s attor~ney woul d make a di ffer•ence. Fahey stated that it is clear~ to him fr~om his r~eview of the minutes that when the Council looked at the r~ezoning of the pr~oper•ty, the Council was disappointed that the tr•iangular• par~cel was not included in the PUD for• Schr•ier•'s pr~oper•ty acr~oss the str•eet. Fahey r~epor~ted that the pr•oper~ty was r•ezoned fr~om R-3 to R-2 and a CUP for• an 8-plex was appr•oved for• the par•cel, however•, that CUP has long since expir•ed. Fahey stated that if Mr•. Schr•ier~ wants to pur~sue the development of the tr~iangular• par~cel within the R-2 zoning, which does accommodate an 8-plex by conditional use per~mit, Mr•. Schr•ier should pr~ocess a CUP r~equest that would be valid at this time. Dill Davison, Planning Commission member~, asked how many units could be developed on the par~cel. The City Planner• r•eplied that under• R-2 with a CUP a maximum of 7.8 units would be allowed. However, without a CUP, only 2 units ar•e allowed. Fahey stated that when the Council consider•ed the CUP in 1983, the Council appr•oved the 8-plex pr•ovided that the building had a low pr•ofi 1 e. However•, i n r~evi ewi ng the ar~ea now, the Ci ty P1 anner• i s r•ecommending that given the development acr~oss the str•eet as well as adjacent r•esidential development, a density of 4 to 6 units would be mor•e appr~opr~iate. Fahey did not feel that the matter• should be consider~ed until a new application for• CUP is submitted by Schr~ier~. Fahey stated that under~ City Or•dinance 921.030 (c), the pr•evious CUP gr•anted in 1983 is null and void, and the Council should not take action to the contrary. alesener~ pointed out that the Planning Commission would have to r~eview any new CUP application that Mr~. Schr~ier~ might submit. alesener also pointed out that the Planning Commission did r~eview the CUP as amended, however~, it was impr•oper•ly assumed that the CUP gr•anted in 1983 was still in effect. Schr~ier• stated that without CUP appr•oval for• 8 units, he would litigate to have the or•iginal R-3 zoning r~etur•ned. Schr~ier~ stated that the downzoning was agr~eed to on the basis that the 8-unit townhomes would be built. Page -4-