Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 21, 2013 <br /> Page 34 <br /> sold for residential use or another development and those owners not aware of en- <br /> cumbrances in place. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted that he didn't see this happening, as a CU often had numerous <br /> conditions running with the property. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned if and how the CU would run, if continuously or when a <br /> situation occurred within that 100' that didn't support the CU and automatically <br /> voiding the CU. <br /> Mr. Paschke advised that the CU would run with the land unless removed by the <br /> City for cause, and provided several examples where the City might revoke the <br /> CU. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan concurred with staffs interpretation; and provided addi- <br /> tional examples; opining that an existing or new neighbor revoking their support <br /> for whatever reason would be unfair to applicant if their CU could be revoked due <br /> to lack of that support. If the City chose to amend their code to require annual <br /> written support from property owners, Mr. Gaughan advised that then they could <br /> do so, but opined that neighborhood cohesiveness should not be up to whims of <br /> future property owners. <br /> Mr. Paschke reiterated that code allows for this use as a CU, and an Interim Use <br /> (IU) would only apply when deviating dramatically from the Comprehensive Plan <br /> or Zoning Ordinance if a use was not allowed in that specific district. However, <br /> Mr. Paschke noted that this is a permitted and conditional use with a CU. <br /> Mayor Roe, with concurrence by City Attorney Gaughan, clarified that a permit- <br /> ted use if permitted by a CU was appropriate in this situation versus a more dis- <br /> cretionary IU. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Paschke provided a more detailed <br /> explanation of staffs determination as referenced in the Planning Commission <br /> meeting minutes, in using this process versus a Variance request. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted that the CU was supported by the Planning Commission with <br /> the three conditions tied to the resolution of support. <br /> At the observation of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there was one con- <br /> dition at the discretion of the City Council, Item 7.2.c (page 5 of the RCA) related <br /> to pet waste that was not incorporated in the proposed resolution. <br /> At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke addressed triggers to be <br /> used by assembling a record of violations and unwillingness of an applicant in not <br />