HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880426
DRAFT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
- ,.
PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 26. 1988
MCDONALD CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW (CON1.1
MOTION
Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to recommend histor ic
designation of this property with the dwelling unit being
considered an accessory use to the restaurant operation with the
intention that the dwelling unit be primarily for the use of the
present owner/managers but that they would have the option to
their "employees of the restauran~ and that therefore they are
fulfilling the employee housing requirement although not at any
particular income level and that they would have the opportunity
to have caretakers or rentals in there should it be necessary for
them to leave town.
David:
I so move.
Michael:
will not
on that.
So long as there is an accessory use there that there
be condominiumization. There should be that provision
David:
I so amend my motion.
Roger:
There are other issues we should discuss.
Jasmine:
The other issues fall under conditional use.
Steve: Yea. You could just deal with them under conditional use
if you feel comfortable with the designation.
Roger: I second the motion.
Jasmine asked if there was further discussion.
The motion is to recommend historic designation of this property
recognizing that the dwelling is an accessory use primarily
intended for the owners/managers of the restaurant who are also
the employees of the restaurant. And that therefor they are
fulfilling an employee housing requirement but not necessarily
at a particular income level and that they would have the right
to rent out the dwelling unit should conditions arise which make
that necessary and that as long as the property during the period
of this conditional use is not to be condominiumized.
.
Cindy: So they have the ability to rent it out and it does not
have to be rented out to an employee of the community.
Jasmine: It should be rented out to a long term resident of the
community.
.
PZM4.26.88
Cindy: It depends on what your intent is.
Jasmine: As opposed to a short term.
David: I think that what we are saying is by are not
condominiumizing it, we are putting it as a dwelling unit of the
business--kind of an accessory use. And then by not putting any
kind of lease restrictions on it they could if they were in the
off season and they close the restaurant they could rent it out
to somebody. But basically you put it as an accessory use to the
restaurant, it kind of ties in.
Jasmine: We could put more specifically "And specifically not
intended for short term tourist use".
Cindy: Is it not intended for that or is it specifically really
intended that it somehow is going to provide housing without any
price restriction on it to someone who is a permanent resident of
the community.
Jasmine: Well, the idea that generally it is going to be the
people themselves living in it. And if they have to leave town
and need somebody to take care of it--they aren't going to be
there for a couple of months and want to rent it out, I don't
think anybody sees a problem with that. Chances it would be a
long term resident. They are not going to hire somebody who just
comes in from Oklahoma to take care of their house.
Cindy: In the guidelines it does talk about--I have worked with
some condominiumization in the County out at ABC but what
happened there is they didn't want to condominiumize it and let
people just rent it short term or people outside of the
community. They wanted to hold it as housing that would be
providing housing for the permanent residents of the community.
So they just said you have to be a resident of the community in
order to rent this space. But being a permanent resident of the
community really means having been here for 30 days and working
in the community. That is all it means.
Michael: What happens if they hire a cook and he comes in and
they leave to California and he lives there?
Cindy: If he hired him, he lives there and that is great. It
would meet that criteria.
Mad: I am not even sure we should specify all that stuff. I
don't know why we can't just be happy that they are not going to
condominiumize it and just approve the conditional use.
2
PZM4.26.88
Michael: I agree.
Jasmine: We have a motion on the floor and we do have a second.
So we can certainly take a vote on it.
Michael:
resident?
Does your motion include a long term permanent
David: I don't think that any of us have wanted to restrict it
any more than just saying it is an accessory use connected to the
restaurant and won't be condominiumized. All those things cover
the short term. It is not condominiumized and can't sell it off
and all the other things that we see that we don't want.
Roger: You left only one thing out and that is that by it being
accessory use of the restaurant that we have found that that
satisfies the employee housing requirement.
David: As an accessory use of the restaurant satisfies employee
requirement.
Steve: One of the concerns about it is the enforceability of it
and the mechanism of creating this animal--this is a
recommendation to the city Council who is going to take some
zoning action and I think that the most pertinent question is to
ask the applicants if this is something they are basically
comfortable with and willing to volunteer as part of the historic
designation in order to do the restaurant.
Caroline: It is my understanding that saying accessory use isn't
limi ting us to if we had to leave town and wanted somebody to
stay in the place it is not limiting us to who we have, how much
we charge, when it is or any of that. This statement is the
criteria in saying that as long as we have conditional use we
will never condominiumize the property which is totally
acceptable and understandable for us.
Steve: So this action assumes that the follow up would be that
at Council level, you would actually prepare a legal instrument
restricting the unit.
Scott: We would present a notarized statement to that effect.
Jasmine: So we have a motion to which the applicant has agreed.
I will submit it to a vote:
All voted in favor of the motion.
3