My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1983/07/11
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
Agenda Packets - 1983/07/11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2025 3:21:21 PM
Creation date
3/12/2025 3:21:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/11/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council <br />Clerk -Administrator <br />FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician <br />DATE: June 29, 1983 <br />SUBJECT: WILLARD HARO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />Attached is revised Resolution No..1617 pursuant to review by the <br />City Attorney and a rediscussion by the Planning Commission. To <br />refresh your memory, at the June 13, 1983 meeting, the Council <br />reviewed the resolution prepared for the approval of the oversized <br />accessory building for Willard Haro. The Council had a concern <br />that the language requiring a future owner, if he decides to keep <br />the building, to apply and receive Conditional Use Permit approval <br />would tie up the property when it is about to change ownership. <br />The City Attorney concurred with the Council's concern. Subsequently, <br />staff has revised the resolution to read that the use of the <br />accessory building would be restricted to the storage of domestic <br />supplies and non-commercial equipment and should any future owner <br />request to change the purpose/use of the building, then they would <br />have to come in and receive Conditional Use Permit approval for the <br />proposed use. <br />The Planning Commission also reviewed this proposal following <br />council's direction. One item the Planning Commission added was <br />that perhaps language could be inserted into the Conditional Use <br />Permit stating that no driveway, improved or unimproved, provide <br />access to the building. Since it would be stated that the only <br />use for this building is for the storage of supplies and not <br />commercial activity, insertion of the driveway language may not <br />be necessary. <br />RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1617. <br />FK/pf <br />Attachment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.