Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO <br /> ELIMINATE THE OWNER-OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT <br /> FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT; <br />CASE OF KEVIN BLOCK, BARBARA LEE, AND GARY SANDBERG <br />By: Amy Geisler, Associate Planner <br /> <br />CASE # <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />In 1994, a former owner of 15823 Nowthen Blvd applied for and received a conditional use <br />permit to allow an accessory apartment in the R-I' Residential District. The approved CUP <br />allows the property owner to rent out the second dwelling unit on the property, so long as the <br />property owner maintains residence in one of the units. Since 1994, the property was sold to the <br />present owners, who now wish to sell it to a prospective buyer, who wish to rent out both units. <br />To accomplish this, the original CUP must be amended to delete the owner-occupancy <br />requirement. <br /> <br />The following items are enclosed for your information: <br /> <br />g. <br />h. <br />i. <br />j. <br />k. <br />I. <br /> <br />Site location map <br />Planning Commission meeting minutes dated February 1, 1994 <br />City Council meeting minutes dated February 22, 1994 <br />Site drawing <br />Site photos <br />Letters from residents <br />Original findings of fact <br />Resolution waiving the 14 day requirement <br />Proposed findings of fact <br />Original conditional use permit <br />Resolution to deny the amended conditional use permit <br />Resolution to approve the amended conditional use permit <br /> <br />Notification: <br /> <br />In accordance with State Statute, City Staff attempted to notify all owners of property within 35© <br />feet of the Subject Property of the request and public hearing. The Planning Commission held a <br />public hearing on October 7, 2004. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />The original Conditional Use Pernlit process began in 1993 after a building inspection revealed <br />there were two dwelling units in use on the Subject Property. The owner at that time was notified <br />that she needed a CUP in order to operate an accessory apartment in the R-1 Residential District. <br />A CUP was issued by the City Council in 1994, with the condition that the property owner <br />maintains residence in the main dwelling unit. Since that time, the R-1 Residential district was <br />amended to eliminate accessory apartments as a conditional use; therefore, the accessory <br />apartment on the Subject Property is now considered lawful non-conforming. Presently, both the <br /> <br /> <br />