Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Dec. 10, 1987 <br />VanGuilder <br />Request <br />(Cont.) <br />Todd Rice, 191 Australian, stated that the existing garage on the <br />property was misplaced and is actually on the George Rossez property. <br />Durkin disagreed, pointing out that they just had the property <br />surveyed, and have a title company that will insure the title of <br />the property. <br />Rice stated that there is some sort of overlap of property in the area. <br />Durkin agreed, but stated that it does not involve this parcel. <br />Rice stated that he and some of the other property owners in the area <br />are concerned that they will end up with undesirable commercial <br />development behind their houses. Rice stated that he does not want <br />anything that will be an eyesore. <br />VanGuilder pointed out that there is a row of pine trees in the back <br />of the property and that when he builds a building, it would be placed <br />as close as possible to the dentist's office and behind the pine trees. <br />Durkin stated that without the rezoning, the property will probably <br />turn into a rental property. <br />Rice replied that it has been rental property for the last few years. <br />VanGuilder suggested that the City limit the number of vehicles he could <br />have on the parcel. <br />Davison stated that he had no problem with Mr. VanGuilder either buying <br />the property and living in it or building his business there, but was <br />not in favor of a combination of the two. Davison felt there would be <br />a precedent set if the City approved a request to meet an individual's <br />specific needs. The ordinance says that a hardship must be present to <br />warrant a variance and a hardship must be other than economic in nature. <br />Davison reported that a lot of people have similar situations that are <br />justifiable from an economic sense. <br />VanGuilder asked if he could live in the home if the zoning remained <br />B -3. <br />The Planner reported that under B -3 zoning, the non - conforming <br />residential use can continue until it ends and then must be converted <br />to commercial. However, the two uses cannot be mixed under B -3 zoning. <br />This is the reason the applicant is requesting an RB zoning. <br />Mr. Gene VanGuilder reported that they discussed the proposal with the <br />Planner and was told of the process they should follow. However, the <br />Planner never indicated the points he has raised tonight. VanGuilder <br />pointed out that they paid a $550 application fee and probably would not <br />have pursued their request or paid the fee if they had known what they <br />found out tonight. <br />Page 3 <br />