04-10-2014 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 2014 approved, the Vang's will have to convert the structure to a single - family home. Maleitzke asked if there have been other situations in the City where this has happened. The Planner indicated that there are other duplexes in the R -1 zone that were converted or constructed when the one -in -ten provision was in effect. However, the duplex use has been maintained and the legal non - conforming status has not been lost. The Planner could not recall a similar situation, and indicated that if there has been, the structure may have been demolished. May pointed out that the only reason that this property lost its legal non- conforming status is that the previous owner was in the service and a bank cannot foreclose on a property when a person is on active duty. Fischer stated that it is important to note that this property has been vacant for an extended period of time and that the City has attempted to contact the owner relative to code enforcement and vandalism issues with no success. The property has remained vacant and in disrepair. Fischer noted that the ordinance is clear on the timing for when a legal non - conforming use loses that status. He agreed that the comp Plan talks about expected population growth and that the City is fully developed. Fischer felt, however, that rezoning this property to R -2 would be spot zoning and it would be a stand -along parcel zoned R -2 within an R -1 District. Fischer indicated that for that reason, he could not support the Rezoning. Murphy suggested that another option would be to argue that the vacancy was beyond the control of the owner and request that the one -in -ten status be reinstated for this property. Lee indicated that the Vang's were not aware that that was an option; and, if it is, would pursue that option. The City Planner indicated that the Code states that a legal non - conforming use loses its legal status after a period of discontinuance of 12 months. He indicated that it is not an option to reinstate the status, and noted that the City Attorney has commented previously that there is no room to adjust a time period such as this that is established in the Code. Fischer acknowledged the allowances that are made for people serving in the military. He noted that the property owner had conveyed the property to a family member while he was in the service; however, the property was still not maintained. Duray felt the situation was an unfortunate one. He indicated, however, that the City must comply with the Comp Plan and noted that the Comp Plan prohibits spot zoning. Duray also pointed out that the property has -5-