01-25-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission January 12, 1989 have been abandoned for six months and any future use of the site must conform to 8 -3. Brandenhoff reported that this is not true. Brandenhoff also reported that the Planner's report indicates that the property is legally non - conforming because of the 71 foot width since minimum lots size would be 100 feet. Brandenhoff stated that if the B -3 zoning is retained on the property and the City declares the property to beleqally non - conforming, Mr. Weber will be unable to sell his property to any buyer. Brandenhoff indicated that the Planner made statements about the combination of the Weber property with the property to the north to make the parcels legally conforming. Brandenhoff pointed out that this puts his client at risk and only promotes the City's benefit. Rrandenhoff also pointed out that the depth of the property is a hinderance, with most buyers looking for visibility to Rice Street. Brandenhoff pointed out that even if the two lots were combined, there would only be 142 feet of width on Rice Street. Brandenhoff pointed out that the City would be forcing his client to wait to see if the property could be combined. Brandenhoff stated that if the City will not rezone the property to I -1, then he requested that the City designate the property as legally conforming even though there is only 71 feet of width. Otherwise, Brandenhoff asked that the City either buy or condemn the property because the result would be a taking of the property. DeLonais asked when the property was first divided into the the two 71 foot lots. Mr. Nadeau, adjacent property owner, estimated that the property was divided about 30 years ago. DeLonais asked if notices were sent on the rezoning. The City Planner replied that the City did send notice of the Public Hearing. The Planner reported that he met with the applicant and his real estate agent in November, 1988 and Mr. Weber indicated at that time that he did not receive the Notice of Public Hearing because he was not living at the residence at the time it was sent. The Planner reported that this was the information he used in determining that the 6 month time period had lapsed. Brandenhoff reported that Mr. Weber did not vacate the property totally until the end of July. The Planner reported that the non - conforming width does not effect the City's view as to whether the property is usable or not. The Planner pointed out that the property is legally non - conforming, however, grand - fathered in. The City assumes that the property will be used as 8 -3 as long as other performance standards have been met. Brandenhoff pointed out that given setback requirements, with a 71 foot Page -11-