CC Min 1986-02-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 5 (continued) Report of City Manager and Community Development Director 1/29/86 Letter from Raj Khatri for Khatri Family 12/19/85 (See also Report of 9/16/85; City Council Minutes 11/18/85) Community Development Director Schroeter referred to the subject report and described the findings of the property inspection of December 3, 1985 by the San Mateo County Health Department and the Redwood City Fire, Building and Planning Departments (attached to report), noting that the District Attorney has had proceedings against the Khatri family members who own the property. City Attorney Schricker outlined the alternatives available to Council in considering the proposed revocation of Use Permit: 1) If a violation of the Zoning Ordinance is found, it may support termination of the use and require elimination of the structure 2) If no violation of the Zoning Ordinance is found, the Use Permit may be revoked, if it is found the continuing use will be detrimental to the neighborhood, but the use would then become non - conforming and the use would not automatically be terminated. Mr. Schricker said that then in the event the property is not used for the non-conforming use for a period of six months, or some event causes the motel to have to be rebuilt, the non-conforming use would be terminated 3) Conditions could be attached to the Use Permit which would address such matters as may arise during the presentaton of evidence this evening, the present permit having been issued in 1958 with no conditions. Mr. Schroeter observed that a fourth alternative of taking no action is also possible and said that staff is prepared to proceed on whichever of the alternatives Council may select. In response to questions, Mr. Schroeter said that the R -4 -T (Multifamily -- Medium Density -- Transient Residential Combining) Zone allows motels; that in spite of petitions and complaints, the property owners do not agree that the neighbors oppose their operation; that the owners claim all violations have been corrected, noting that his experience is that patchwork corrections are made and violations have continuously recurred since 1979. Mayor Britschgi declared the public hearing open at 9:36 p.m. Mark Solomon, 401 Marshall Street, attorney representing the Khatri family, owners of the property, suggested the public hearing notice was deficient in that it did not include the grounds for the proposed revocation. Mr. Solomon said that no violation of the Zoning Ordinance exists; that the Use Permit has no conditions; and that agreement has been reached with the District Attorney regarding the lawsuits against the Khatris. He suggested that the violations listed i n the inspection reports are minor, and there is a shortage of evidence to support a finding of a legal public nuisance. Mr. Reg.Mtg. 2/24/86 Page 5 MINUTE BOOK NO. 46 Page No. 178