08-19-1968 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

material was ordered filed. Mro Cohen stated that one of the reasons the variance was granted was that Council had granted o~e in 1959, but it is an entirely different outlook today, a number of people are protesting; granting of the expanded use would be detrimental to the surrounding properties; also that the policy has not been to grant this particular use in other than M 2 zoning. Stanley Gould, attorney representing the applicant, Mr. Solomon, spoke, stating that when the area was annexed to the City in 1959 all the businesses were informed that they could continue the use if the property were annexed even though they were non-conforming uses. Mr~ Gould displayed sketches~ and stated the concrete block building would be 150 feet long and there would be a 12 foot wall around the property so it couldn't be seen from 5th Street. He stated that the building would be an asset to t he existing businesses in the area. Mr. Gould also requested that the owner be reimbursed for the street improvements after they are completed. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed. The Clerk reported that a letter had been received from Cecil Blinn by Senior Planner Steve Lafer. Mr. Lafer stated that the main point of Mr. Blinn's letter was that the wrecking yard is not a non-conforming use since it was not a wrecking yard when the property was annexed to the City. Senior Planner Steve Lafer explained that when the property was annexed to the City there were several salvaged vehicles on the property; that in 1959 a variance was granted which was not put into use and became void; since then the operation has expanded from a few vehicles to hundreds of vehicles; it is a situation that started with a legal non-conforming use but has now expanded to such an extent that it may not now be. The City Attorney stated that in 1967 the City filed a complaint against Mr. Solomon that he had enlarged upon a non-conforming use~ and the Court held that the City's position could not be sustained principally because nothing had been done for so long a period of time. After considerable discussion~ it was moved by Councilman Brooks, seconded by Councilman Markel, to overrule the action of the Zoning Administrator and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance 68-70. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEi~: Brooks, Markel, McMichael Herrin~ Carlson~ Griset Thurman RECESS present. At 8:35 P.M. a five-minute recess was declared. The Council reconvened at 8:45 P.M. with the same Council members APPEALS(continued) It was moved by Councilman Herrin~ seconded by Councilman Griset, to uphold the action of the Zoning Administrator and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution granting Variance 68-70 subject to the conditions in Finding of CITY COUNCIL , 514 August 19,