Laserfiche WebLink
Community D~evelopment Director Frolik inquired if staff should eliminate the opportunity to <br />review applications for businesses without homes associated with the property. <br /> <br />Consensus of be Council was yes. <br /> <br />The Attorney i representing Lonny Menard stated that the proposal before the Council came <br />because Mr. Menard has a ten acre commercial site that was grandfathered in and is. now loCated <br />in a residential~ area. Mr. Menard has had his property on the market for four years and he cannot <br />sell it because, it is zoned residential but has a power line going through the middle of the <br />property. Mr. !Menard came to the City after a conditional use permit for the property was denied <br />for a prospectlye buyer. There is no provision to use the building other than storage of personal <br />items so that Would mean that their only option is to tear down the unit or build a home. She <br />noted that Mr~ Menard is not the only property owner in the City with a similar situation. By <br />taking the language out of the ordinance that would allow for the City Council to consider a <br />home occupation permit on a property without a home takes 'away the venue that brought Mr. <br />Menard to th6 Council. By limiting the ordinance it does not provide an option to use the <br />property, therefore, they are leaving the "white elephant" without a use. They have had <br />prospective b .~..ers for the property to do such things as building cabinets, but that was denied by <br />the City Coun~,~il. It was her recommendation that the City identify what would be permissible <br />only on parcels ten acres or larger in size. She had also suggested that language be included in <br />the ordinance ~lefining nuisance and tying it to contents of the ordinance, but that was rejected by <br />the Planning ~2ommission. Without that there is still vague language with no definition of <br />nuisance. Th,O/have been at several meetings and they still do not have an ordinance that solves <br />her client's prpblem. Every meeting costs him an additional $500.. If they are going to pass a <br />version of tho ordinance that does not address Mr. Menard's problem she requested that Mr. <br />Menard be reimbursed his $400 zoning amendment application fee. <br /> <br />Mayor Game~ replied that Mr. Menard has been informed many times that the property can be <br />used for a horde occupation if he joins the two parcels. <br /> <br />The Attorney r?plied that they are not able to find someone to buy bOth parcels. <br /> ; <br />Mayor Gamecl stated that it is a home oCcupation permit so it means the home is on the parcel. <br /> <br />The Attorney ireplied that this is a situation that was lawfully created. If the ordinance is not <br />going to addr~s his situation Mr. Menard should not have to pay the fee. <br /> <br />Mayor Gameq stated that Mr. Menard had the choice to pay the fee and continue the process. <br />The City Council has given him fair warning that a home occupation on the property Without a <br />home will probably not be allowed. <br /> <br />The Attorney iexplained that Mr. Menard came in asking for City guidance and it has always <br />been the City Proposal not the applicant proposal. <br /> <br />Mayor GameC5 stated that it is a unique situation but there were ways to resolve it; however, Mr. <br />Menard chose inot to. <br /> <br />City Council/November 25, 2003 <br /> Page 13 of 28 <br /> <br />P33 <br /> <br /> <br />