Laserfiche WebLink
City Council meeting of October 2, 1989 <br />Page 6 <br />Santanni has indicated that the building in question will be used solely <br />for agricultural purposes related to activities taking place on the site. <br />City ordinances do not allow for the construction of an accessory building <br />on site prior to the construction of a principal residence unless a SUP is <br />secured. In light of the staff's conversations with Mr. Santanni <br />regarding the future of the site in question, there is some concern <br />regarding allowing the building and then Mr. Santanni subdividing the <br />property for residential purposes. In the past, the City has required a <br />letter of credit deposit assuring that the principal residence will be <br />constructed on the site within a specified period of time. It is our <br />understanding that a residence was located on the site in question at one <br />time, but was destroyed by fire a number of years ago. The property in <br />question was approved for a recreational use (zap games) in 1987. Mr. <br />Santanni appeared before the Planning Commission on September 27, 1989 at <br />the required public hearing, and informed the Commission that the zap <br />games operation no longer exists on his property. Mr. Santanni submitted <br />a petition signed by abutting property owners indicating that they had no <br />objection to the construction of this agricultural building. The Planning <br />Commission indicated concern that if the use of this property changes, the <br />City could end up with another metal storage building in the middle of a <br />residential area, and said building could be used for something other than <br />agricultural purposes. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning <br />Commission unanimously approved the SUP in question based on the site plan <br />submitted, and compliance with nine special conditions. Following the <br />Planning Commission approval, Mr. Santanni then said he wasn't concerned <br />about having to post a letter of credit before subdividing his property as <br />some of the property was already subdivided into a ten acre tract. The <br />Planning Commission then questioned why the site plan submitted by Mr. <br />Santanni did not reflect the different lots on the 80 acres he previously <br />indicated was a single parcel. The Planning Commission then raised a <br />number of questions regarding setbacks and the precise location of the 10 <br />acre tract referenced by Mr. Santanni. When Mr. Santanni could not <br />identify the site location and the setbacks from this 10 acre parcel, the <br />Planning Commission then acted to rescind their previous approval and <br />table this matter until Mr. Santanni could provide a deed and a survey <br />showing exactly how the lots are laid out on this 80 acre site. Mr. <br />Santanni refused to have the property surveyed or provide the information <br />requested by the Planning Commission, and said that he did not want this <br />matter tabled, but wanted the Planning Commission to act on it <br />that evening. After further discussion, Planning Commissioner Senkler <br />moved that the application for a SUP be denied based on Mr. Santanni's <br />refusal to submit the information requested by the Planning Commission, <br />and because the information that was submitted was admittedly inaccurate <br />and did not reflect the true layout of the site in question. Motion for <br />denial was unanimously approved by the Commission. In an effort to <br />resolve the concerns of the Planning Commission, Mr. Santanni has made <br />application with the Washington County Auditor's Office consolidating all <br />three parcels of land that he owns into a single 80 acre parcel that would <br />be consistent with the plan originally submitted to the Planning <br />Commission. By making this land consolidation, Mr. Santanni feels that he <br />would now be in conformance with the original recommendation for approval <br />by the Planning Commission' <br />