Resolution - #04-10-325 - 10/26/2004

Home

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. That the City Building Official has indicated that the main dwelling structure was constructed in about 1964 and an addition to the dwelling was constructed in about 1974. That on February 22, 1994 the City issued a Conditional Use Permit to a former property owner in order to operate an accessory apartment on the Subject Property, provided that the owner maintained residence in one of the units. That the Subject Property was subsequently sold to the Applicants, who currently maintain full owner-occupancy in both units. That the addition contains its own kitchen, living room, bedroom, and bathroom, all of which are separated from the main living quarters by an atrium door, and its own furnace, water heater and gas meter, and is therefore considered to be an accessory apartment by City Staff. That the original CUP Applicant has stated that the accessory apartment has been utilized as such ever since it was constructed in the 1970s and the Applicant continued this use when taking ownership of the dwelling unit in 1991. That City Staff has determined that the homeowner responsible for constructing the accessory apartment in the 1970s never properly obtained a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with City Code at that time. That the main living quarters and accessory apartment were damaged by fire in 1993 and upon inspection by City Staff, the original Applicant was informed that a conditional use permit must be obtained to bring the accessory apartment into compliance with City Code. That on September 21, 2004 the City received an application from the Applicants for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to delete the owner occupancy requirement in order to sell the Subject Property. That on October 7, 2004 the Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommended the City Council deny the request for an amended conditional use permit. That there are other similar permitted conditional uses in the single family district that do not explicitly require owner occupancy. That the proposed use will not adversely impact traffic in the area. That the proposed use will not be unduly dangerous or detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity of the use, or to the public welfare. That the proposed use will not substantially adversely impair the use, enjoyment or market value of any surrounding property. That the proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. RESOLUTION #04-10-325 Page 2 of 3