Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 22, 2010 <br />review of the City's records. The Attorney indicated that those properties <br />it is determined have grandfather rights will be identified. The appropriate <br />action will then be to harmonize the grandfathered rights with the existing <br />conditional use permits for the property. <br />McGraw asked about case law. The City Attorney replied that it is <br />incumbent on the property owner to show that he /she has grandfathered <br />rights. The Attorney indicated that what the City is doing in researching <br />the record to identify the grandfathered rights a property might have is <br />above and beyond. If a property owner does not agree with the City's <br />final analysis, that property owner will have to produce records to support <br />his /her case. <br />Keis asked about illegally established outdoor storage that may have <br />existed for many years, and asked if that type of storage would be <br />grandfathered if the City made no effort over the years to correct the <br />situation. The City Attorney replied that illegal outdoor storage in this <br />situation is still illegal outdoor storage. If the City had a lack of <br />enforcement action, that does not provide grandfathered rights, and the <br />City does not lose its ability to enforce the Code. <br />The City Attorney pointed out that almost every property being reviewed <br />has obtained a conditional use permit; therefore, felt the issue before the <br />Council was not a big one. He again noted that any legally established <br />outdoor storage (1984 -1997) would have had to comply with the existing <br />ordinance standards at the time. Again, the effort will be to harmonize <br />this 1984 -1997 outdoor storage with the existing CUP for the property. <br />The City Administrator noted that the Code during the 1984 -1997 time <br />period required that a site plan be signed off on by the Building Official. <br />He indicated that staff is reviewing any site plans for that time period <br />regardless of whether the Building Official signed off on them or not. It <br />was also noted that screening was a requirement, and a building permit <br />should have been issued for any fencing. It was further noted that some of <br />the site plans show fenced in areas, but the site plan is not labeled <br />identifying the area as outdoor storage. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that a request for rezoning and CUP <br />for outdoor storage for the Nielsen property is on the Council's agenda <br />this evening. This property was rezoned to I -P, and at the time of the <br />rezoning the Nielsen's asked if they could continue their existing use of <br />the property. The current outdoor storage use does not comply with I -P <br />standards, but would meet 1 -1 standards. The Nielsen's feel that there use <br />is grandfathered in, and have been contemplating withdrawing their <br />zoning request. The Administrator indicated that there is no site plan in <br />2 <br />