04-10-2014 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 2014 months of vacancy, the non - conforming use must be re- established only in conformance with the zoning ordinance. The ordinance states that the purpose of the non - conformity regulations is to eventually bring non- conformities into conformance with the current zoning requirements. The Planner noted that this structure has sat vacant for the past three to four years, during which time the City has had a series of code enforcement issues. During that time the City attempted unsuccessfully to notify the registered owner of the violations with no success. The parcel went into foreclosure this past fall and the City then began receiving calls relative to the use of the property. The Planner noted that the City became aware of the applicants purchase of the property when they applied for building permits to remodel the significantly deteriorated structure. At that time, the Building Official informed the applicants that the non- conforming duplex use has lapsed and the structure could only be used as a single - family home. The Planner reported that he then was contacted by the applicants who wished to pursue the continued use of the structure as a duplex. The Planner informed them that their only option would be to request a Rezoning of the property to R -2. He reported that he also informed them that the Rezoning would be unlikely given the surrounding area. The Planner noted that in considering a Rezoning, the Zoning Ordinance outlined in Section 921.010.C. a set of standards for evaluation. These are outlined in the Planner's report dated February 7, 2014. The Planner indicated that the primary standard is that of compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The Planner noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates this, and the surrounding area, as low - density. The Planner stated that it was his opinion that a Rezoning to R -2 would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Comp Plan. The Planner noted that the City took specific steps to eliminate the allowance for one duplex in every ten single - family homes. Therefore, the Rezoning requested is inconsistent with the Comp Plan and the past actions of the City in eliminating the one -in -ten allowance. My Lee, attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission and reported that the Vang's acquired the property in January of 2014. Prior to purchasing the property, they reviewed public tax records and noted that the structure was identified as a two - family dwelling and that the property was in foreclosure. Lee reported that the previous owner was in the service and had to leave Minnesota. That owner left the property in the care of a family member, who did not take care of the property. -2-