CC Min 1988-07-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 3 (continued) Affidavits of Publication of Notice of Hearing and of Mailing are on file. Report: Planning Director 7/11/88 Planner Passanisi presented the subject report. Mayor Greenal ch declared the public hearing open at 8:07 p.m Lily Mancarti - Muller, spoke on behalf of her father, John Mancarti, the appellant, who does not speak English. Mrs. Muller read a statement stating that a second living unit was constructed as part of her parents' home for use of her sister's family; the family has since moved and her parents would now 1 ike to rent the 1800 sq.ft. unit for i ncome and 1 ive i n the 640 sq.ft. unit. Keith Sanders, 540 Sapphire, neighbor of the appellant, said that the neighborhood is zoned for single - family homes and to allow a duplex would change the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Sanders urged Council to deny the appeal. Mrs. Sterger, 488 Sapphire, neighbor of the appellant, suggested that the additional unit was constructed to be a duplex in violation of the single-family zoning in the neighborhood and urged denial of the appeal. Mayor G ree nal ch invited anyone else who wished to speak to do so. No one else wished to speak. M/S : Murray/Claire to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously by voice vote and public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. M/S : Claire/Murray to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator in denying application of Use Permit to allow accessory dwelling on single-family lot at 530 Sapphire Street, John Mancarti , appellant, noting that the structure clearly exceeds what would be allowed in the R -1 District; that the findings made by the Zoning Administrator in his report of June 15, 1988 be adopted; and also the finding made that the structure as built violates the purpose and intent of the R -1 Zoning District. Carried unanimously by voice vote. City Attorney Schri cker stated for the record and to Mrs. Muller, representi ng John Mancarti , that the structure vi of ates the 1 aw and the appellant has 90 days within which to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, noting that when a flagrant violation of the Zoning Ordinance occurs, prosecution, which can be both civil and criminal, takes place immediately following the expiration of the 90 -day period. Mrs. Muller acknowledged she understands and will make it clear to her father. MINUTE ORDER NO. 88 -112 Reg.Mtg. 7/25/88 MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page 3 Page No. 134