Agenda - Council - 01/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I ! ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I Per Council: s[recl stmctureS/UJ~$ inii City Couhoi! i[a 14, 1992!Ci~[C0u meeting, btl~l had been: co~lte~ memo dated~I~cer Observation}: I did consult final plat'ap}r~va!; to the De~grltljrer ~ ; i CASE # FOLLO~Pi~ISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMO OA gO ,O ;CE BER RELATING TO NON-CONgORMI a ~'~!~--~'~ STRUCTURES/USES IN COWLES ADDITION By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Back groundi Jest of December 18, 1991, I researched the zoning status of the 4 main he recently approved plat of Cowles Addition. My response was provided to 'form of a memo dated December 27, 1991, which was included in the January nCil Consent Agenda. I was not present at the January 14, 1992 City Council :rstand that there was some question regarding whether or not the City Attorney t regarding this matter. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of my lber 27, 1991. ihe CitY Attorney regarding non-conforming uses on Cowles Addition prior to :On December 18, 1991. I also discussed the results of my research subsequent 8 Council meeting with the City Attorney on two separate occasions between December l~i~l~iday Council requested additional information) and December 27 (the da), I drafted the.-~Irn61;~to City Council). When discussing the results of my research with the City Attorney~ he;s iatex i:that in his opinion the burden of proof, as it relates to lawful or unlawful non- conformingiu;ses !in Mr. Cowles case, lies with the City and that there is not sufficient documental~0r! tol: rove beyond a reasonable doubt that two of the uses are unlawful. Therefore, it would be initlie C ty's best interest to rule in favor of Mr. Cowles and declare two of the uses lawful non4e'6 ifog ning. We also came to an agreement on which of the two uses would be best considered lfiOfui~ I .on-conforming. Although. th~ ~it ttorney and I verbally discussed and agreed to the content of my memo, I did not give him~. ~a[~eview of the memo before I issued it. However, I did talk to the City Attorney on January 2},; 1~2 and he has given verbal confirmation to the content of my memo dated December 27i i199 ~'. I expended W~atl structures ori ~.owI main building:~a~ expend the ail~iti0 was adopted :II'lJa~ t lj Recommend~tlo~: i. Coundil :P{ction: Will b~ based on your discussion. Review CheC~k!ist: 5 City Administrator r : t City Attorney cc: /28/92 ; felt to be a reasonable amount of time in researching the issue of when the gs Addition were constructed and when that part of code that limits lots to one ~dopted. If Council desires to pursue this matter further, City Staff is willing to ~al time it would require to more accurately determine when that part of Code nits main structures to one per lot.