01/08/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 This report is based on the following exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Comprehensive Plan Map 3.) Zoning Map 4.) Plat Map (showing lot combinations) 5.) Sketch of 908 -1/2 Maple Street & 908 Orange Street 6.) Council Minutes — December 12, 1983 7.) Council Minutes — June 17, 1991 8.) Narrative from Mr. Charles Pfmgsten HISTORY OF SITE USE The background/history of the property is somewhat involved and irregular. First, although there does not seem to be any official designation of the address "908 -1/2 Maple Street," this address has come into use for the property because the property was owned and used in conjunction with the property to the north/rear, 908 Orange Street, on which Mr. Flanagan's home and auto repair business was sited. Second, in 1983 Mr. Flanagan asked for, and was granted, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 40'X60' pole building on the site, to be used for "cold storage" (trucks, autos, parts, etc.) in conjunction with his auto repair business (see Exhibit #6). The minutes and reports for this application state both that the "area is zoned for GB (General Business)" and that "auto and truck repair is listed as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Business District — therefore an expansion or intensification of that use will require a Conditional Use Permit or amendment to such." Third, in 1991 Mr. Flanagan asked to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit in order to allow K &C Custom Auto Body to operate as a business out of the pole building at 908 -1/2 Maple Street (see Exhibit #7). The report for this application states that "the land is a remnant of the City's commercial strip that was eliminated several years ago. Present zoning is General Business...automobile and truck repair (is) a conditional use." The amended Conditional Use Permit was granted, with 16 conditions attached. Importantly, both these past CUPs were approved for specific purposes, under a previous City ordinance, with previous zoning conditions, and do not imply — implicitly or explicitly — rights for any other CUP or uses, such as that proposed by the current applicant. Further, the uses previously approved have now become non - conforming uses under the City's current zoning ordinance. Significantly, the City's zoning ordinance is explicit regarding non - conforming uses (Section 3, subdiv. 2.A), stating as its intent that "all non - conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." •