1986-08-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes I August 26, 1986 ~ Council Business, continued Benke asked if there was any remedy in the code if a permit is not granted other than requiring the demolition or removal; Locke didn't believe there was much choice. LeFevere clarified that the issue before the council is to determine whether or not this is a caretaker/watchman residence within the meaning of the code; if council concludes the house is an appropriate use, it would be a Type IV nonconformity for which council recently granted approval and which would need to be amended to include the residence. LeFevere further stated if council determined the residence is not that of a caretaker but something more, within the meaning of the code, there is nothing council can do but simply deny use. Williams asked if the code addressed penalties for construction without a building permit; Locke responded the city can, upon application, bill for double the amount of the permit fee which is based on value. I Vickie DeYoung, Chenoweth Greenhouse, stated they were advised by staff that the application for a permit was not in their best interest at that time, considering the embarrassing nature of ~_ it; DeYoung stated they had planned to address it after the greenhouse fire and expansion issues had been resolved. DeYoung stated that the addition to the house snowballed and Chenoweth lost touch. Within the industrial district as permitted accessory use, Locke stated the code reads, "one dwelling for a watchman." Benke felt, in this case, watchman is appropriate. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Brandt, to APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT DUE TO THE INTENT THAT THE DWELLING IS FOR A NIGHT WATCHMAN AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS AN AMENDED NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT AND TO PROCESS NORMAL CODE ENFORCMENT. Schmidt stated it was not clear whether or not the addition to the caretaker residence occurred before the fire and discovered before the fire and, at the time of the application then for the greenhouses, that there was no discussion about the other additions or expansions that were taking place. Locke state staff is not aware of when improvements began on the property but was not aware of the addition at the time of the non-conforming I. use permit appl ication. . Schmidt stated he would have considerable anguish if the appli- cant had been advised by our staff not to bring to bring the application for a building permit to the council's attention, as seemed to be what was presented; Locke indicated, to his knowledge, that did not happen. Page Ten